RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most people seem to want to build on their own and take their chances with group dynamics or group role play. This is a solid indicator of competitive play.
Really? Simply wanting to build your own character as you please indicates competitive play?
So, it can't indicate that with previous groups they've gotten burned with the "someone has to play a cleric" dynamic?
It can't indicate that they want the first session to be diving into actually playing the game so they want to have their character already built on their own time?
It can't indicate that they think party coordination is metagamey and they just want everyone to pick something and see how the story unfolds?
It can't indicate that they just want everyone to be able to play whatever each person would most enjoy?
It can't indicate any of those things? It's just an indicator of competitive play?
I'm up for a race around the world.... and... ready... set.... Go!...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've noticed a lot of the whole "you gotta RP it out" thing tends to be about CHA based skills... You never seem complaints about or rewarding RP regarding how a person swings their sword or does a Knowledge check or looks for tracks. But he moment a person is requires to use any CHA based skill, suddenly the PLAYERS charisma seems to be one in question, not the players.
More than a few times I have seen people who are not naturally very good speakers want to play faces but get shut down because they are just not very good speakers and "I roll for diplomacy" doesn't seem to be enough for the GM. Or a guy with 0 points in any face skill able to speak his way out of anything because THE PLAYER is a very good speaker.
|
This is probably just me but…
When I started playing RPGs way back yesteryear, the game was about a group of characters trying to accomplish goals as a ‘group’. The ‘in-character acting’ (‘roleplay’ ) was fun and sometimes funny little snippets that enhanced the overall fun. Exploration, Interaction, and Combat played a more or less equal part in the story that was being told.
Now the ‘group’ is a bunch of individuals who only reason for being a group was that the players were sitting at the same table (and not just at PFS tables). ‘In-character acting’ (‘roleplay’) has become the emphasis over all other aspects of the game. Group goals are secondary to individual’s time in the limelight.
At least this is the feel I get from current play and talk on these threads.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
This is probably just me but…
When I started playing RPGs way back yesteryear, the game was about a group of characters trying to accomplish goals as a ‘group’. The ‘in-character acting’ (‘roleplay’ ) was fun and sometimes funny little snippets that enhanced the overall fun. Exploration, Interaction, and Combat played a more or less equal part in the story that was being told.
Now the ‘group’ is a bunch of individuals who only reason for being a group was that the players were sitting at the same table (and not just at PFS tables). ‘In-character acting’ (‘roleplay’) has become the emphasis over all other aspects of the game. Group goals are secondary to individual’s time in the limelight.
At least this is the feel I get from current play and talk on these threads.
If you'll permit me, I'm curious to see what you think of this hypothetical revision of your statement. Please note that this isn't supposed to be any kind of challenge or anything, just scratching a curiosity-itch that I've had for a while
When I started playing RPGs way back yesteryear, the only group whose dynamics I was aware of was my own and maybe one or two others I knew personally, and the way we played was that the game was about a group of characters trying to accomplish goals as a ‘group’. The ‘in-character acting’ (‘roleplay’ ) was fun and sometimes funny little snippets that enhanced the overall fun. Exploration, Interaction, and Combat played a more or less equal part in the story that was being told. I kind of assumed everyone else saw the game the same way, even if I never really thought about it.
Now that the hobby is bigger and I'm out on the great big internet, I've been exposed to way more fellow players than I ever used to know. Among them, some of them seem to view the game as one where the ‘group’ is a bunch of individuals who only reason for being a group was that the players were sitting at the same table (and not just at PFS tables). ‘In-character acting’ (‘roleplay’) has become the emphasis over all other aspects of the game. Group goals are secondary to individual’s time in the limelight. I find myself assuming that this is a new trend, but upon further reflection, I have no data to suggest that it's not something that's been a part of the hobby from the beginning and I'm just now seeing a large enough sample size to become aware of it.
What do you think? Could that be a better fit?
|
|
This is probably just me but…
When I started playing RPGs way back yesteryear, the game was about a group of characters trying to accomplish goals as a ‘group’. The ‘in-character acting’ (‘roleplay’ ) was fun and sometimes funny little snippets that enhanced the overall fun. Exploration, Interaction, and Combat played a more or less equal part in the story that was being told.
Now the ‘group’ is a bunch of individuals who only reason for being a group was that the players were sitting at the same table (and not just at PFS tables). ‘In-character acting’ (‘roleplay’) has become the emphasis over all other aspects of the game. Group goals are secondary to individual’s time in the limelight.
At least this is the feel I get from current play and talk on these threads.
I've always believed role-playing should be the preeminent aspect of a role-playing game. The others are in place to facilitate it, and are constructed around that foundation.
If that's all role-play was for you back then, perhaps what you're experiencing now is the game more the "right" way, and you're just not accustomed to it.
"Individuals' time in the limelight" isn't at all what it's about if done properly. Instead, it's an ensemble cast coming together for some cool interaction. It doesn't have to be Shakespeare in the Park, but it should be about portraying your character in such a way that the interactions lead to an organic whole that's just really cool to behold.
Aww so there is a 'right' way to play and ll those other people I've played over the 30+ years I've been play have been doing it wrong all along.
|
|
This is probably just me but…
When I started playing RPGs way back yesteryear, the game was about a group of characters trying to accomplish goals as a ‘group’. The ‘in-character acting’ (‘roleplay’ ) was fun and sometimes funny little snippets that enhanced the overall fun. Exploration, Interaction, and Combat played a more or less equal part in the story that was being told.
Now the ‘group’ is a bunch of individuals who only reason for being a group was that the players were sitting at the same table (and not just at PFS tables). ‘In-character acting’ (‘roleplay’) has become the emphasis over all other aspects of the game. Group goals are secondary to individual’s time in the limelight.
At least this is the feel I get from current play and talk on these threads.
If you'll permit me, I'm curious to see what you think of this hypothetical revision of your statement. Please note that this isn't supposed to be any kind of challenge or anything, just scratching a curiosity-itch that I've had for a while
...When I started playing RPGs way back yesteryear, the only group whose dynamics I was aware of was my own and maybe one or two others I knew personally, and the way we played was that the game was about a group of characters trying to accomplish goals as a ‘group’. The ‘in-character acting’ (‘roleplay’ ) was fun and sometimes funny little snippets that enhanced the overall fun. Exploration, Interaction, and Combat played a more or less equal part in the story that was being told. I kind of assumed everyone else saw the game the same way, even if I never really thought about it.
Now that the hobby is bigger and I'm out on the great big internet, I've been exposed to way more fellow players than I ever used to know. Among them, some of them seem to view the game as one where the ‘group’ is a bunch of individuals who only reason for being a group was that the players were sitting at the same table (and not
Nope.
Edit: maybe to some extent. But I have played with alot of people over the years, maybe it was just 'luck' that I came across so many who play very similiar to the other people I played with before.
|
|
I have played with alot of people over the years, maybe it was just 'luck' that I came across so many who play very similiar to the other people I played with before.
I too have had many years of gaming with many players from across several different states (here in the US) that have all pretty much shared my personal tastes in gaming, but all of that, is my own personal experience, and no matter how many games we've all played or the number of players that we've met whom share similar gaming experiences and expectations, it's ALL anecdotal, every last bit of it...
Most people seem to want to build on their own and take their chances with group dynamics or group role play. This is a solid indicator of competitive play.Really? Simply wanting to build your own character as you please indicates competitive play?
So, it can't indicate that with previous groups they've gotten burned with the "someone has to play a cleric" dynamic?
It can't indicate that they want the first session to be diving into actually playing the game so they want to have their character already built on their own time?
It can't indicate that they think party coordination is metagamey and they just want everyone to pick something and see how the story unfolds?
It can't indicate that they just want everyone to be able to play whatever each person would most enjoy?
It can't indicate any of those things? It's just an indicator of competitive play?
I didn't say it was ONLY an indicator of competitive play just that it often was. Gosh what bug landed in your Wheaties? Why such an All or Nothing position? You can't honestly say that people not wanting to sit for a cooperative group building session isn't many times a good indicator that they prefer competitive play styles? I am obviously NOT saying it can't also be any of the things you mention either, so stop trying to twist things. Please.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Most people seem to want to build on their own and take their chances with group dynamics or group role play. This is a solid indicator of competitive play.Really? Simply wanting to build your own character as you please indicates competitive play?
So, it can't indicate that with previous groups they've gotten burned with the "someone has to play a cleric" dynamic?
It can't indicate that they want the first session to be diving into actually playing the game so they want to have their character already built on their own time?
It can't indicate that they think party coordination is metagamey and they just want everyone to pick something and see how the story unfolds?
It can't indicate that they just want everyone to be able to play whatever each person would most enjoy?
It can't indicate any of those things? It's just an indicator of competitive play?
I didn't say it was ONLY an indicator of competitive play just that it often was. Gosh what bug landed in your Wheaties? Why such an All or Nothing position? You can't honestly say that people not wanting to sit for a cooperative group building session isn't many times a good indicator that they prefer competitive play styles? I am obviously NOT saying it can't also be any of the things you mention either, so stop trying to twist things. Please.
Then what did you actually mean by "solid indicator of X"?
Did you mean that it means X so consistently that you can typically assume that X is the case rather than one of the other possibilities?
If you do mean that, then your protest is quibbling over the difference between "effectively always" and "technically always", which is a ridiculous complaint.
Conversely, if that's NOT what you meant, then your original statement of "solid indicator" is itself false, in much the same way that saying "the engine light is a solid indicator of such-and-such a specific problem" would be false.
So, what did you actually mean? If you're truly being misrepresented, clarify what you meant and show how it's (meaningfully and substantially) different from how your words were taken. Otherwise, your protest reads as a quibble over a technicality that you're using as a distraction from the problems with your actual claim. Feel free to correct me.
Wow... who on earth would say an engine light is a "solid" indicator... NO that would be an "actual" indicator of engine trouble.
Solid means reliable. So by solid I mean it is more often than not an indicator. Just because something is solid doesn't mean it is ALWAYS the case just that it is often the case.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow... who on earth would say an engine light is a "solid" indicator... NO that would be an "actual" indicator of engine trouble.
Maybe we have a different understanding of engine trouble. Mine turns on to let me know the oil is almost due.
Note that the example given was 'engine light is a solid indicator of specific problem', not 'engine light is a solid indicator of there being a problem'.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Wow... who on earth would say an engine light is a "solid" indicator... NO that would be an "actual" indicator of engine trouble.Maybe we have a different understanding of engine trouble. Mine turns on to let me know the oil is almost due.
Note that the example given was 'engine light is a solid indicator of specific problem', not 'engine light is a solid indicator of there being a problem'.
This.
There's a big difference between "the engine light coming on could mean any number of things and we won't know which it is unless we probe further" and "the engine light coming on reliably indicates this one specific thing is wrong".
Similarly, there's a big difference between "not liking group character building sessions could mean any number of things and we won't know which it is unless we ask" and "not liking group character building sessions reliably indicates this one specific thing" .
Then, when I replied to your claim that "behavior X reliably indicates this one specific thing", you reacted by saying "well I didn't say that that one specific thing is the ONLY thing indicated by behavior X".
So, I guess if we want to be really precise about your claim, it's that "behavior X could technically be the result of any number of things, yet paradoxically, behavior X is nevertheless a solid/reliable indicator of just this one specific thing".
Glad we got THAT cleared up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no "One True Way" to RPG, honestly find the level of immersion that works for your group and use that. I come from a background of Amber Diceless and other heavy story based games, so yeah, I prefer the RP (almost to the exclusion of anything else). That said I also get that in more mechanics based games (such as Pathfinder/D&D/etc) a lot of the participants get a great deal of enjoyment from the strategic aspects (more efficient builds, using the right mechanic at the right time, etc) and that is a completely valid way to get joy out of gaming.
Find the group that shares you're level of comfort, if you don't like RP, find a very strategy based group (I've been in groups that barely bothered to name their characters). If you do like it, find a group that's more willing to de-emphasize the mechanics for story (there's a reason we say the GM is the final say on how rules work - or if they even apply).
If you want to wade out into the deep end and eschew the dice entirely sign up for one of my diceless games at PaizoCon next year. Went rather well this year once my players figured out that their crazy GM was serious.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...willing to de-emphasize the mechanics for story...
This is a little bit of a derail, but...
Any game* in which a de-emphasizing of mechanics is capable of (or even is necessary for) elevating the story, is a severely flawed roleplaying game, if it can even be called a roleplaying game at all.
Ideally, a "roleplaying game" is a system in which the "game" and the "roleplaying" go hand in hand. At the most basic level, this is when Bob the Clumsy Brute and Dexter the Dextrous Thief need to get past a locked door and the rules tell you which character has better odds at picking the lock. By having mechanics that differentiate the characters' capabilities, the mechanics help to produce the story: there's a reason why Dexter would stop Bob and say "Let me handle this," and there's a reason why a situation where Bob is in a pinch and has to try anyway produces a tension which can result in a compelling story (perhaps by succeeding against all odds, or perhaps by having to work around his failure).
If the mechanics fill (one of) their proper roles of differentiating characters' capabilities, then de-emphasizing the mechanics will not enhance the story, but rather detract from the story. In the above example, de-emphasizing the mechanics means reducing (or even eliminating) the difference between Bob's and Dexter's lock-picking skills. If there's no mechanical reason why Bob should step aside and let Dexter handle the lock, then you get one of two results: one, you no longer have a clumsy brute and a dextrous thief, instead replacing them with two characters of identical skillsets, who are in turn that much weaker as characters because they have less identity; or two, you pretend in your storytelling that there's a skill difference that isn't really there, in which case the whole experience is a dishonest farce. In either case, the "story" has gotten worse, not better, by "de-emphasizing the mechanics".
Now, that's the ideal. In practice, you may indeed encounter situations where a good story could be happening but the mechanics are in the way. Should that happen, I submit that de-emphasizing the mechanics is not the solution (except perhaps temporarily, in the moment). The better solution is to fix the mechanics so that in the future they support the story in the manner described above. Or if fixing is too big of a job, then it might be time to reevaluate whether the game you're playing really suits your roleplaying needs at all.
Or at least, that's how I see things. :)
...willing to de-emphasize the mechanics for story...This is a little bit of a derail, but...
Any game* in which a de-emphasizing of mechanics is capable of (or even is necessary for) elevating the story, is a severely flawed roleplaying game, if it can even be called a roleplaying game at all.
Ideally, a "roleplaying game" is a system in which the "game" and the "roleplaying" go hand in hand. At the most basic level, this is when Bob the Clumsy Brute and Dexter the Dextrous Thief need to get past a locked door and the rules tell you which character has better odds at picking the lock. By having mechanics that differentiate the characters' capabilities, the mechanics help to produce the story: there's a reason why Dexter would stop Bob and say "Let me handle this," and there's a reason why a situation where Bob is in a pinch and has to try anyway produces a tension which can result in a compelling story (perhaps by succeeding against all odds, or perhaps by having to work around his failure).
If the mechanics fill (one of) their proper roles of differentiating characters' capabilities, then de-emphasizing the mechanics will not enhance the story, but rather detract from the story. In the above example, de-emphasizing the mechanics means reducing (or even eliminating) the difference between Bob's and Dexter's lock-picking skills. If there's no mechanical reason why Bob should step aside and let Dexter handle the lock, then you get one of two results: one, you no longer have a clumsy brute and a dextrous thief, instead replacing them with two characters of identical skillsets, who are in turn that much weaker as characters because they have less identity; or two, you pretend in your storytelling that there's a skill difference that isn't really there, in which case the whole experience is a dishonest farce. In either case, the "story" has gotten worse, not better, by "de-emphasizing the mechanics".
Now, that's the ideal....
Valid point, but I think you're taking my point on de-emphasizing mechanics a bit farther than I intended. The story should be based on the characters story, so having Bob suddenly able to pick a lot is as much a violation of the story as it is the rules mechanic. Playing with the mechanics isn't about making the characters win, it's about telling a good story. Bob getting a one time pass on locking skills isn't a good story (well, it could be, if you turned it into something delightfully strange and long running, but veering back on course....).
I think this comes up most often in mechanics heavier games like Pathfinder (as opposed to say, Amber, Lords of Gossamer or Monsterhearts) with social interaction. You can have wonderful, witty banter where the player comes up with something quite clever that gets negated by a bad die roll. I tend to throw away the dice for RP interaction unless a point comes up where there are elements of doubt or suspense over a response would add to the interaction. The mechanics in that case become added spice to the interaction, not the goal of the interaction. There are other examples, but that was the one that first came to mind.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to throw away the dice for RP interaction unless a point comes up where there are elements of doubt or suspense over a response would add to the interaction. The mechanics in that case become added spice to the interaction, not the goal of the interaction.
Should that happen, I submit that de-emphasizing the mechanics is not the solution (except perhaps temporarily, in the moment). The better solution is to fix the mechanics so that in the future they support the story in the manner described above.
So, you changed the parameters of how the mechanics worked, so that they would better support the story? Sounds like the kind of fixing I was talking about. :)
Also:
I think this comes up most often in mechanics heavier games like Pathfinder .... You can have wonderful, witty banter where the player comes up with something quite clever that gets negated by a bad die roll.
Or if fixing is too big of a job, then it might be time to reevaluate whether the game you're playing really suits your roleplaying needs at all.
:/