How do you handle "roleplaying" vs "rollplaying" in your games?


Gamer Life General Discussion

201 to 242 of 242 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:

There is no right or wrong way to play this game...

...

"Just don't play like you need to win."

;)


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Terquem wrote:
"Just don't play like you need to win."
I play my characters like they need to survive... because they kind of do... if they want to live and all.

My characters want to live, but they're also not perfect paranoid tactical machines. They have issues and make mistakes. Sometimes I even intentionally have them do less than what I think is optimal, because it makes sense for them.

I like a game that's a little more forgiving, so that I can do that without death or TPK.


This isn't a matter of which edition you've played/are playing or how long you've been playing or any of the other things that have cropped up.

This is purely a matter of communication. Some people get upset when something goes different or wrong at the table. Maybe you thought that the game would be a little less hardcore and more relaxed, so you didn't pour as much into character creation as you could have. You maybe don't know the rules as well and are ashamed to mention it so your character suffers. Maybe you are dead set on being THE BEST EVER and forget that everyone else wants time to shine and play and vent their frustrations beating something up too.

Whatever the issue, whatever you believe is the right/wrong/stupid/old school/new school/Too MMO!/munchkin/blah blah blah argumentative BS that crops up, the best way to solve it is to get it out on the table and discuss it like rational human beings.

Otherwise, passive aggressive sniping on the boards and glaring at the other player(s) at the table doesn't do any good and makes you come across as petulant. Explain what the problem is. Swallow your pride and come clean that you don't know the rules well and could use some help making X character. Humble yourself NOT to follow the Complete Optimizer's Guide To Doing A Thousand Points Of Damage A Round just this once so someone else can play -- or help them to your level in a friendly way rather than "you suck, can't you build a character?"

It's supposed to be fun. Drama and hassle aren't fun.


thejeff wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Terquem wrote:
"Just don't play like you need to win."
I play my characters like they need to survive... because they kind of do... if they want to live and all.

My characters want to live, but they're also not perfect paranoid tactical machines. They have issues and make mistakes. Sometimes I even intentionally have them do less than what I think is optimal, because it makes sense for them.

I like a game that's a little more forgiving, so that I can do that without death or TPK.

That's a nice preference to have honestly.

But not exactly a roll versus role thing. More of a casual versus hardcore argument.

Some people are happy to play Skyrim on easy mode.

Some people aren't happy until the game literally hates them.


thejeff wrote:
I like a game that's a little more forgiving, so that I can do that without death or TPK.

You and me both.

It especially bugs me when GMs deliberately ramp up the difficulty just because the players don't struggle for a few adventures.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
I like a game that's a little more forgiving, so that I can do that without death or TPK.
  • Sometimes I like a game that's a lot more forgiving, so that I can try ridiculously silly stuff without death or TPK.
  • Sometimes I like a game that's a little more forgiving, so that I can occasionally make mistakes or do stuff purely for flavor and not feel like there will be too steep a price tag for it.
  • Sometimes I like a game that's totally unforgiving, so that the slightest miscalculation, tactical error, or poor choice will be lethal to my character or even the entire party.

    To be honest -- I can't really fathom why any player or group would want to confine themselves to only one of those options. I love the change of pace, and I love it when the same game, for the most part, can be used for all of them. Just as long as everyone is clear on which sort of game is being played for each set of PCs/session/AP or whatever, they're all good.


  • Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Brother Fen wrote:
    Honestly, if "pull your weight" is your mantra - we won't play together long.

    Are we playing together at all?

    Brother Fen wrote:
    I find I don't enjoy playing with powergamers that are more interested in numbers crunching than anything else.

    Stormwind again.

    Brother Fen wrote:
    I think the powergaming generation is ruining the game for everyone else.

    I started with AD&D around 1979 or 1980... is that the generation you mean?

    ----
    Seriously, though, sometimes I enjoy a game in which all the adventurers are bumblingly inept, and we face nothing worse than a mean schnauser during our quest for more beer. Sometimes I enjoy playing in a more standard AP. Sometimes I enjoy making a super-optimized hunter-killer for an Age of Worms-style campaign. They're ALL fun for me, at different times. And that means you can't even generalize play style within one single person, much less a "generation."

    I would submit that there is a wide range between 'hypercompetant' and 'bumblingly inept'. And not being highly optimized does not mean bumbling ineptitude.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    RDM42 wrote:
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Brother Fen wrote:
    Honestly, if "pull your weight" is your mantra - we won't play together long.

    Are we playing together at all?

    Brother Fen wrote:
    I find I don't enjoy playing with powergamers that are more interested in numbers crunching than anything else.

    Stormwind again.

    Brother Fen wrote:
    I think the powergaming generation is ruining the game for everyone else.

    I started with AD&D around 1979 or 1980... is that the generation you mean?

    ----
    Seriously, though, sometimes I enjoy a game in which all the adventurers are bumblingly inept, and we face nothing worse than a mean schnauser during our quest for more beer. Sometimes I enjoy playing in a more standard AP. Sometimes I enjoy making a super-optimized hunter-killer for an Age of Worms-style campaign. They're ALL fun for me, at different times. And that means you can't even generalize play style within one single person, much less a "generation."

    I would submit that there is a wide range between 'hypercompetant' and 'bumblingly inept'. And not being highly optimized does not mean bumbling ineptitude.

    That would be his "Sometimes I enjoy playing in a more standard AP."


    5 people marked this as a favorite.

    by kicking the stormwind fallacy in the teeth and punting it over a goal post into the trashcan where it belongs.

    There is no vs.


    If you lot want a good example of roleplaying watch Critical Role on Geek & Sundry

    edited to fix spelling


    Terquem wrote:
    "Just don't play like you need to win."

    Don't tell me how to play.

    Sovereign Court

    In before;

    Cheryl Tunt "you're not my supervisor!"


    RDM42 wrote:
    I would submit that there is a wide range between 'hypercompetant' and 'bumblingly inept'. And not being highly optimized does not mean bumbling ineptitude.

    Try reading the next few sentences. I'm defining endpoints in the part you quote, but see that very same post where I talk about the middle ranges as well, as thejeff pointed out. And, most importantly, about how one person can enjoy games at various places anywhere along that scale -- which all of the "we hate dirty rollplayers!" people always very pointedly ignore -- something I find quite telling.


    There's room for all kinds of playing styles in PF. My rule of thumb is "There's no such thing as the RP police, players do not decide how other players create or play their characters."

    Liberty's Edge

    There a point though where I get tired of carrying another party member. While I know that it's also a team activity. I refuse to build a character or hold back a character from being effective at a table. Members of a sports team don't play or score less effectively because one or two players are not performing. They get better or they get traded. At my workplace myself or my other co-workers will not stop doing our jobs better simply because another co-worker is not meeting his quota.

    As long as character attributes are tied so strongly to mechanics characters with lower attributes will suffer. No amount of roleplaying will change it imo. A low str fighter will simply not be able to carry as much. Nor hit or does as much damage than one with a 14+ higher str. While a viable concept at the table. It requires the DM giving a special exemption on encumbrance fr one thing. Which I won't as a DM. Or require players to help carry around his stuff. Which I'm willing to do at first yet I'm no one pack mule for long. Nor will I underplay my character either.

    One can make such characters in generic systems like Gurps or the Hero System. Not D&D. At least not in the latest or previous incarnations. At least not without major houserules. I could build a low str wizard say in the Hero system. Yet also build a spell or ability. That allows me to summon creatures to carry my items. While staying around for a long duration or even permanently.

    I don't get let alone understand why some in the hobby can't both roleplay and build a character that is viable at the table. It's all good to build a low str Fighter. Just don't complain if one can't lift anything, nor hit or hurtt anything. While getting offended that someone else is more effective at the table.

    Not to mention it's almost always implied that those telling players who build characters with low attributes. Are told in a rude manner to build one with at least enough str to carry some minimal equipment. As a DM I tell players that I don;t do any favors to players with low attribute characters at the start. As a a player I offer not tell advice. But after awhile if they ignore my advice I also don't want to hear any complaints from the players. One can't have it both ways imo.


    Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

    I've seen tables collapse because the hyper-optimized folks couldn't rp beyond their optimization. I've even played at a table where a table of 3 L5 'optimal' characters couldn't hit the Big Bad at the end of the scenario and the non-optimized L1 Bard could, and did up saving the party's bacon.

    I've seen tables collapse because role-players got so locked into the roleplay they were doing that they forgot their initial mission.

    I've seen so-called 'average' tables put together insanely amazing intricate and layered plans using 'average' skills and abilities and owning situations.

    In all things there needs to be balance. Without that, things can become lost.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I'll submit again that very few people are talking about deliberately crippled, "I'll dump my main stat" characters. Other than in games deliberately designed for that, like Kirth's "sometimes I enjoy a game in which all the adventurers are bumblingly inept, and we face nothing worse than a mean schnauser during our quest for more beer." In which, by the way, your optimized character would be as unwelcome as one of those characters in your game.

    We're mostly talking about default level, competent characters vs hyper-optimized ones.

    But again, the main rule should be build for the table. If the consensus is hardcore, edge of the seat, death around every corner, bring the toughest thing you can put together and have fun that way. If the consensus is beer and pretzels, mess around and have fun, bring the incompetent one and have fun screwing up. And all points in between.

    If one of those doesn't appeal to you, sit the game out. Find another group if you need to.


    thejeff wrote:
    Other than in games deliberately designed for that, like Kirth's "sometimes I enjoy a game in which all the adventurers are bumblingly inept, and we face nothing worse than a mean schnauser during our quest for more beer." In which, by the way, your optimized character would be as unwelcome as one of those characters in your game.

    This depends in large part how the optimized character is played. I'm a firm believer in applying necessary force and holding reserves.

    "I'm not really left handed" is a thing.


    I'm not looking to quibble, but I've often found that the toughest character I put together requires less attention to the game, allowing me to mess around than have fun, whereas a jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none results in more edge-of-my-seat moments. (That's assuming default level encounters, I suppose.)


    Moreover, when that twinked out combat machine dies, there is a lot more drama and accusations of cheating on the DM's part.


    thejeff summed it up nicely. Like I keep saying, if you appoint a peewee Little League player from down the street to be the starting pitcher for the Yankees, you ruin the world series. Equally, if Michael Jordan sneaks into a pick-up game of half-court at the local YMCA and actually plays, he ruins that game. Yes, games geared towards "average" ability PCs can to a larger extend tolerate differences, if only because acceptable variations can extend in two directions instead of only one, but even then there's a wide range between endpoints and somewhere along the line you pass the point of compatibility.

    Everyone CAN'T just "make whatever character you want," in a team game. Everyone has an obligation to communicate what level of optimization and what level of difficulty they're looking for, and the table as a whole needs to come to a consensus. When this isn't done, one or two things happen: (1) the DM's job becomes 10x harder; and possibly (2) you still end up with problems, if the range in expectations is too large.

    Nor does everyone need to decide "I only play games that are at exactly X level of difficulty," or "I only play characters that are at exactly Y level of optimization." As stated, I personally enjoy the entire range, and switching it up provides a very refreshing change of pace. If you do decide that you can't tolerate anything but what you're used to, do everyone else a favor and stay home when those parameters aren't the ones that are agreed on.

    These discussions always devolve into people saying, basically, "If everyone else would just play my way, there wouldn't be any issues!" Well, no kidding. But in real life land, sometimes everyone doesn't agree. That's why in a group activity it pays to, like, talk to each other and stuff, and maybe be open to give-and-take ("Fine, I'll tweak out a demigod for this adventure, but next time can we just play a standard 15 PB?" or even "That AP was fun, but I want to try some really goofy concepts in an easier game, what do you guys think?")


    Indeed, but one thing I'd like to add to Kirth's post is that Michael Jordan CAN go down to the local YMCA pickup game and just play around and have fun for its own sake without crushing the other players into the depths of despair despite the total lack of challenge the game presents.


    kyrt-ryder wrote:
    Indeed, but one thing I'd like to add to Kirth's post is that Michael Jordan CAN go down to the local YMCA pickup game and just play around and have fun for its own sake without crushing the other players into the depths of despair despite the total lack of challenge the game presents.

    I disagree -- it'll be clear to everyone that he's intentionally gimping himself, and removes any feeling from his teammates that there's any actual contest of skill going on against the other team.


    Respectfully disagree Kirth [barring knowledge of his identity of course.]

    I don't feel that it's that easy to tell that someone is gimping themselves. Sure he might not seem to struggle physically the way some others are on the court, but that's a simple matter of physical fitness not true skill.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    kyrt-ryder wrote:
    Indeed, but one thing I'd like to add to Kirth's post is that Michael Jordan CAN go down to the local YMCA pickup game and just play around and have fun for its own sake without crushing the other players into the depths of despair despite the total lack of challenge the game presents.
    I disagree -- it'll be clear to everyone that he's intentionally gimping himself, and removes any feeling from his teammates that there's any actual contest of skill going on against the other team.

    OTOH, in his case the thrill of playing with Michael Jordan might be enough to make up for it.

    But yeah, no contest of skill.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Hitdice wrote:
    I'm not looking to quibble, but I've often found that the toughest character I put together requires less attention to the game, allowing me to mess around than have fun, whereas a jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none results in more edge-of-my-seat moments. (That's assuming default level encounters, I suppose.)

    I'd rather play a character a notch or two above what the adventure calls for, so I can have that mess around fun. That doesn't require that I be tougher than the rest of the group though. I certainly don't want to be deliberately holding back, ready to save them if things go bad.

    Nor does I want to play the toughest character I can put together most of the time. That requires limitations I don't want.

    I think the main point might be that it's as easy or easier to dial back the adventure than to crank up the characters.


    Freehold DM wrote:
    Moreover, when that twinked out combat machine dies, there is a lot more drama and accusations of cheating on the DM's part.

    Not an optimization issue.

    If a beloved character dies and the person is inclined there will be drama and accusations regardless of the optimization level of the character.

    Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    This is why I like how 5E's math kind of takes care of itself. Though there's things in that system that aren't quite to my taste, it's still been like a breath of fresh air. A lot of "rollplaying" accusations in Pathfinder come from differences in math (i.e., you scraped together a bigger pile of +1's than someone else did), and those differences in math just really aren't there in 5E's model.

    In Pathfinder, the math is like a wall: a bajillion little bricks all getting stacked to create a whole of the desired size. The system expects you to put something on top of the foundation (as opposed to just relying purely on BAB or other automatic bonuses), so gathering and stacking bricks to actually build something is a core assumption. However, a lot of the bricks are hidden under rocks and inside trees or scattered across continents. Some people are more or less skilled at finding them, some people think taking bricks from too far away is stealing, and some people don't care where you found your bricks but think there's a maximum number of bricks you should ever use and/or the final wall needs to look a certain way.

    In short, Pathfinder math is about building a brick wall while various people judge you for how many bricks you used or where you got them or what your wall looks like in the end.

    By contrast, 5E's math is much more controlled. Being good at something is binary (either proficient or not), rather than being a finely-adjustable accumulation of tiny increments. That it waaaay harder for people to judge you for your stats.


    thejeff wrote:


    I think the main point might be that it's as easy or easier to dial back the adventure than to crank up the characters.

    No, not really.

    It's a lot less work and ultimately more rewarding as a GM to help players learn and use the system rather than intentionally dumb down every encounter to give a false sense of accomplishment.

    Unless of course you're being straightforward about the kid gloves. Which has problems all on its own.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    TarkXT wrote:
    thejeff wrote:


    I think the main point might be that it's as easy or easier to dial back the adventure than to crank up the characters.

    No, not really.

    It's a lot less work and ultimately more rewarding as a GM to help players learn and use the system rather than intentionally dumb down every encounter to give a false sense of accomplishment.

    Unless of course you're being straightforward about the kid gloves. Which has problems all on its own.

    Have you been reading people's posts?

    It's not about how to "learn and use the system". I can do that. I can build twinked out combat monsters that trash encounters way over their CR. I don't want that.* I don't enjoy that. I actually like an easier game where I can play non-optimized characters who sometimes do dumb things for in-character reasons.

    *Every once in awhile I like the hardcore game. Even more rarely I like the real bumbling idiot kind of game, but mostly I know what I want.


    While we're discussing our preferences, I prefer playing the combat monsters that can trash encounters way over their CR while mostly encountering the standard expected encounters for their APL.


    thejeff wrote:
    TarkXT wrote:
    thejeff wrote:


    I think the main point might be that it's as easy or easier to dial back the adventure than to crank up the characters.

    No, not really.

    It's a lot less work and ultimately more rewarding as a GM to help players learn and use the system rather than intentionally dumb down every encounter to give a false sense of accomplishment.

    Unless of course you're being straightforward about the kid gloves. Which has problems all on its own.

    Have you been reading people's posts?

    It's not about how to "learn and use the system". I can do that. I can build twinked out combat monsters that trash encounters way over their CR. I don't want that.* I don't enjoy that. I actually like an easier game where I can play non-optimized characters who sometimes do dumb things for in-character reasons.

    *Every once in awhile I like the hardcore game. Even more rarely I like the real bumbling idiot kind of game, but mostly I know what I want.

    I've read it. But those are purely from player perspectives. Individual ones as well.

    What you aren't hearing are the voices of those who haven't even developed a preference yet. Nor the voices of those who have zero choices about what tables they can go to. Nor, the thoughts of GM's like myself who often deal with very mixed sets of groups.

    A homogeneous agreement is great if you can get one with full understanding. But that also requires you have player's of similar skill and expectations. That's actually far more rare than you think.

    Just 24 hours of work running a table at a con teaches you a lot about variety in both style and skill.


    kyrt-ryder wrote:
    While we're discussing our preferences...

    As a player? Two of the most fun games I've ever been in were like total opposites!

    In one, I played a happy Robin Hood wanna-be who robbed churches in order to -- literally -- buy beer. Occasionally there would be some bumbling antagonists with names like Jean LeDirt. Sometimes I'd even hit something with a sword; I think, by 3rd level, I was a rogue 1/ranger 1/sorcerer 1 or something, so my BAB was +1 and I only had 1st level spells, and I think I finally had enough leftover cash to upgrade from a short sword to a longsword! There was no expectation that it would be a really challenging campaign at that point, so I responded accordingly.

    In another one, I played a single-classed wizard, and was told I'd be going through a souped-up version of Village of Hommlet -- except as a villain, trying to replace the existing bad guy while staying out of the reach of the law. The other PCs were, IIRC, a blackguard and a small black dragon. Because everyone wanted us dead, and nobody was pulling any punches, we embarked on a massive campaign of deception and misinformation, and I was on a number of occasions forced to use my prepared spells in very unorthodox manner just to stay one step ahead of the posse. There was every expectation that this would be a lethal campaign, and again, I responded accordingly.


    A key point I took from that.

    Kirth enjoys playing bad guys, whether they be archvillains or two-bit thieves :P


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    kyrt-ryder wrote:

    A key point I took from that.

    Kirth enjoys playing bad guys, whether they be archvillains or two-bit thieves :P

    It's a hard habit to break when you're stuck GMing for years. ;-;


    It's like crossing a bridge. You stay to the middle mostly. You go too far right or left and you fall off the bridge.

    I heard a player who had a girlfriend who wanted to create a baker character. Not a Rogue that had the profession baker. More like an expert baker. She insisted on bringing her character on some adventures, then got mad that her character died. Even the thread died out. There's no way to fix that.

    I was at a convention and some battlemage killed the whole town fighting some goblins. The GM put him on trial and was going to have his character executed. He burned all his certs and the character instead lost some levels, and all his time units for the year. Killing every encounter and saying, "They should have been built for combat." won't fly either.

    How do I handle role vs roll playing? I remind people that rule 1 is fun. Stupid character concepts like the stupid baker or killbot 2000 is not fun for anyone.


    She should have been an Alchemist Baker throwing explosive pies.

    Bonus points for face paint and a wicked laugh.


    kyrt-ryder wrote:

    She should have been an Alchemist Baker throwing explosive pies.

    Bonus points for face paint and a wicked laugh.

    Or Calming pies.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

    Thank you jeff.


    TarkXT wrote:
    Freehold DM wrote:
    Moreover, when that twinked out combat machine dies, there is a lot more drama and accusations of cheating on the DM's part.

    Not an optimization issue.

    If a beloved character dies and the person is inclined there will be drama and accusations regardless of the optimization level of the character.

    your speak to your experience, I'll speak to mine.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Freehold DM wrote:
    TarkXT wrote:
    Freehold DM wrote:
    Moreover, when that twinked out combat machine dies, there is a lot more drama and accusations of cheating on the DM's part.

    Not an optimization issue.

    If a beloved character dies and the person is inclined there will be drama and accusations regardless of the optimization level of the character.

    your speak to your experience, I'll speak to mine.

    Drama and accusations are annoying regardless of the optimization level of the character. Suck it up people, stuff happens sometimes.


    Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

    In a different setting, I had a character who was very influential for the game, very skilled in a lot of people-skills... and it was horrifyingly boring to have to do a write-up between game sessions because of all the influence and skills he had. I was spending five to ten hours a week doing that, and I came to the realization that life is too short for that.

    So I plotted with the GM to arrange for an 'off-screen' death, so the GM could roll out a terrifying new Big Bad, and there'd be the big murder-mystery investigation, and I could bring in a new character.

    Cue the twink-brigade of the game becoming upset to the point of tears and offers of real violence because they thought I'd been cheated with no saving throw. This was the same twink-brigade that had saved the character from bona fide 'noble sacrifice' situations at least three other times at great cost to the story and game(which was why I worked with the GM).

    Twink Brigade: "Aren't you even going to fight this? WE need your character!"

    Me: "You'll need to learn how to work without him, I'm sorry."

    Twink Brigade: "We can do 'x' or 'y' or 'z' or..."

    Me: "Just stop. Play the game, follow the story, have fun with it!"

    Twink Brigade: "But... but... that's not FAIR!"

    Turned out that none of *them* wanted to do all the admin work that the deceased character was doing, and were still trying to force some sort of resurrection or raise on the character six months after the event.

    Got bad enough the GM said "If a player feels their character has reached the end of their story, I support that. That situation pushed plot for the past few months, and it woke you up to responsibility. I'm sorry if that's not the play-style you like, but there's the door, we're not forcing you to play."

    No one made a mad dash for the door, and a year later I had one of the brigade come up to me and thank me.. because they wouldn't've had the admin experience which they were able to put to RL use and for a job.

    Point of meandering tale: Social skills(Roleplay) have RL applications. Game mechanic skills (Rollplay) have game applications, rarely mathematical RL applications.

    201 to 242 of 242 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / How do you handle "roleplaying" vs "rollplaying" in your games? All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.
    Recent threads in General Discussion