| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Raided (and loosely converted) from a post of mine over on the Shadowrun boards:
Character stats are how we take a conceptual design and translate it into how a character can quantifiably interact with the universe they're in. This is what keeps us from going 'Bang, you're dead!', followed by 'Nuh-uh, you missed!' Yes, a 14 is better than an 8 (for most Euclidean conceptualizations of 14 and 8), but you are both - actually, most everyone involved in that particular discussion - failing to verbalize the fact that in a RPG, including PF, 'better' does not automatically equate to 'the higher number'. Better, defined for roleplaying, means what best defines the character. If I'm playing a muscle-man, is a 14 better than an 8? Sure is. If I'm playing a wimp, though, isn't an 8 better than a 14?
For all parties involved in this discussion, yes, Race X has an Advantage in Y, no matter what your race is. Race X also has a disadvantage in C, however. Because the Shadowrun world is as developed as it is, not all of those advantages or disadvantages are hard-coded numbers in the system, and rely on the person running the game to bring them into play - or not, as the group and the GM's requirements demand. As a player, game balance is a concern, but not your 'job'; it is the GM's job, and you should acknowledge her concerns in regards to whatever gizmo, skill, skill rating, race, or whatever you want to bring into her game. (And if she says 'No', don't frelling argue, y'know?)
Do elves seem to have advantages? Sure. Can you build a character that is totally lopsided? Sure. Can you argue that 'oh, I would have thought of every possible variation and put armor there!!' Oh, sure. On the other hand, in the world of gaming, like the world online, and pretty much just in the world, Wheaton's Law applies. Don't be a dick, and the GM won't have to kick you out. Say 'oh crap, here it comes' and take the hit - roll with it, laugh about it. Because that adventure where 6 out of 8 PCs and every single allied merc gets their physical track filled in one shot, and your character is the one who scrambled like mad and pulled victory from the jaws of defeat ... those are the ones that get told again and again, as do the ones where y'all got your asses kicked, and you managed to survive by the skin of your teeth.
Also, remember that 'power gaming' can be done with any system; no system is perfectly balanced, and has 'hidden exploits' that the designers never thought could be dragged into the light of day. What that means, however, is that the GM defines the flavor of the table. The GM can wipe you out at any moment, and if you screw her over with your powergaming ways too many times, she just might. Is there anything wrong with designing an efficient character? No. Is there anything wrong with grandstanding? No. But there is something innately wrong with trying to dominate the table and not giving everyone else their place in the sun. PF is designed for everyone to have their niche, and that anyone who can do everything has to play second fiddle to the guy whose niche that is.
Play the game. Don't try to win it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I must have a bad definition for these terms. My understanding of "rollplay" is that it is the absence of "roleplay".
I have never equated it with the mechanics of the game. It's merely someone who rolls dice with no corresponding descriptive dialogue.
The thing is that descriptive dialogue is not roleplaying.
Roleplaying is making decisions in the shoes of your character.
A fair point. However, there is a connotation to "roleplay" that includes "interactive storyteller".
While that may not be in the strictly denotative definition of the word, for me in my real life role as "other guy at the table with you", it is very important.
You might hit the orc reluctantly, or with righteous fury, or with delight in the carnage, or..., or..., or...
Roleplaying something great in your own head is...
... unsuccessful.
I don't think they are mutually exclusive in theory. In practice it depends on the player.
I usually assume 'rollplaying is getting immersed in the more game aspect of the term role playing game. This can simply be deriving fun from sorting out some kind of goofy trick or combo that lets you make whatever concept you'd like to come to life. But its kind of a broad definition. It could be someone who wants their character to be mechanically challenged, which can be bad because the other players at the table can easily have characters who either don't want their system mastery pushed or can't keep up. Sometimes people like that can screw over an entire game because they want to poke and prod to provoke challenges for them to solve at the expense of the rest of the party. Sometimes there are people who act like they don't believe in 'losing'. As if the GM is an adversary for them to defeat and outwit, using the rules as a battleground.
Now those are both negative sides but this can also include players that want to build a concept that is hard to do in the rules. It also includes players that are just trying to keep the rules straight because the campaign is going by the seat of it's pants. Same goes for players are told that the campaign is a meatgrinder that they need to survive.
The key point is that D&D can have a certain element of videogame in there. You have encounters against monsters, jump a boss, save the day. It is of course much more than that but there's elements of the old wargame in there which is a boon for roleplaying for some (you can have your game and roleplay it too) but can also become a vehicle for players that have some kind of superiority complex.
The distinction of rollplayer vs roleplayer is the attempt to identify the people that exploit the game aspects to 'win against the GM and/or other players' and sadly the counterarguments can be used by the same people to say that their descriptiveness is legitimate. This makes the distinction worthless because a 'rollplayer' is a term that covers both good roleplayers and jerks, and that's disregarding the times where a group DOES want a kick down the door game that's basically Castlevania with Monty Python jokes, where the game is a huge puzzle that the GM designed and the players are supposed to solve it. That being a legitimate way to play obscures the term even more.
Looking at the history of Dungeons and Dragons gives a window into different views regarding the nature of the game. These differing views fall on the spectrum of playstyles between "rollplayers" and "roleplayers".
The game evolved from tactical war games that had no pretension of roleplaying and had clearly defined scoring and victory conditions. There was no "roleplaying" beyond perhaps representing opposing sides in historical battles. Dungeons and Dragons became a new type of game when players controlled a single individual known as a PC or Player Character) who had his own goals and ambitions. Aspects such as alignment were added, that fundamentally altered the rules, but for the most part, the storytelling or roleplaying aspect of the game are not rule, dice, or number based. While it could be argued that accruing experience and gold are the new scoring mechanism, really the game switched to enjoyment being the main goal with no defined victory conditions beyond fun.
"Rollplaying" and "Roleplaying" have become euphemisms for the amount of Table-top war gaming vs storytelling someone enjoys in a game. Most of us enjoy a mix of the two, although the ratio varies a lot!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The concepts are not mutually exclusive as gaming behaviors, but there are players who are one but not the other and who do not play in methods where the two concepts overlap.
People often view their side as the correct side. It is human nature.
The way they play the game is best and most enjoyable way and everyone who plays it different is wrong.
I have heard that sediment so much it is crazy. It is the same reason why people hate(yes I use this word hate as i have seen people assault others based on their preference of D&D) people that enjoy other version of D&D.
I have played PFS with people that the only thing they said the whole game was the actions thier characters take in combat claim they roleplayed and not rollplayed. Concluding no one else at the table roleplayed.
Since there people on all sides of the spectrum it is easy for a person to assume they are correct and anyone different is wrong. A typical us vs them or civilized vs barbarian thing they make in their mind.
It is complex game with different style of play and different things to enjoy. If anyone enjoys the game they are playing right.
No, because the setting doesn't support wimps. Medieval survival equipment is heavy. Once you weigh all the crap you need and compare to the carrying capacity chart you should quickly conclude that wimps, like pacifists, team-killers, and blind deaf-mutes have no place in an adventuring party.
Save your wimp for something modern and urban where you don't have to lug a bedroll, several gallons of water, and several days of rations through a dungeon your mule is smart enough to stay the heck out of.
The same goes for most stats. An 8 in dex or con is asking to play a very short role and probably force others at the table who'd prefer to play longer roles to also play short roles unless your character is completely redundant. An 8 in int means not having enough skill points to flesh out a character of most classes. An 8 in wis means playing a role where you murder your friends because you failed a will save unless maybe you're a strong willed but not wisdom using class. An 8 charisma is common among adventurers for a reason. You can try to make a virtue of that, but that's not the same thing as low stats being better.
You can't define characters by their weaknesses because in a small group going into extremely dangerous situations nobody wants their companions to have glaring weaknesses. When your roleplaying forces your friends to metagame in order to not leave you in town you're the one at fault for their metagaming.
And yet characters - people - are more defined by their weaknesses than by their strengths. You talk about a low charisma 'not being the same as low stats being better', but you're still defining your character by a lower stat - a stat which, in most situations, should cause your CHA 4-8 character to be pelted with rotting vegetation, stoned, run out of town, refused sales, arrested for disturbing the peace, locked up, stripped of their possessions, sent to the mines for two years (and more as they continue to get in fights because the character is, let's face it, an antisocial S.O.B.) - all because of the basic presumption that Charisma is a 'dump stat' and that a character is / should be allowed to get away with having it low.
As well, 'low' or 'weak' is proportional to what you're playing. In my first couple runs of my homebrew, characters were given a whopping 50 build points, resulting in multiple 18+ attributes, and rarely anything under a 12. 12, for that game, was 'low' - and the characters were defined by that. In a 'Low Fantasy' campaign using 10 build points, to get an 18 in anything requires a bonus in that attribute, and flat 10s everywhere else - which means a penalty if you're playing anything but a human, and then you have gruff dwarves, frail elves, weak gnomes - the list goes on.
Is stuff heavy? Sure. Can you sacrifice stuff to get points for the things you consider important? Again, sure - a mage sacrificing points in Strength or Constitution is sort of playing to type, and that type exists because of that usage. When you only need strength to hit and do damage, and you've already got armor, why bother having a high Dex when your Str is what's doing the job for you? That's playing to type as well. Taking a slight Wisdom penalty for an ADHD rogue who has self-control issues plays to type as well, and a -1 can be overcome in time.
'Wimps' have every reason to exist and come along, just as much as brusque, screwball idiot fighters do - they keep the fighter out of trouble, cast useful spells, and one first-level spell can carry 100 lbs/level for an hour/level - which means that, by level 4, he's surpassing the thug's carrying capacity at the cost of one 1st level spell - and hasn't a worry about encumbrance, either. Up until that point, carrying stuff is part of the thug's reason to be in the party. Comparing someone with a lower-than-normal strength (or anything, when they have a higher-than-normal attribute in multiple other things) with people who a) won't fight, b) fight you, or b) can't even move is ... well. You know what it is.
Low attributes - whether that's low for the group, or just 'below the standard 10' - define a character as much as high attributes do. Don't kid yourself in believing otherwise. Or are you, amazingly, playing a character with all attributes the same?
And yet characters - people - are more defined by their weaknesses than by their strengths. You talk about a low charisma 'not being the same as low stats being better', but you're still defining your character by a lower stat - a stat which, in most situations, should cause your CHA 4-8 character to be pelted with rotting vegetation, stoned, run out of town, refused sales, arrested for disturbing the peace, locked up, stripped of their possessions, sent to the mines for two years (and more as they continue to get in fights because the...
This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what Cha does and means for a character.
A low Cha does not make you look like a sideshow freak who would be pelted by vegetation or put in a circus so people can "Ogle the grotesque" for a pence, because that would be a memorable appearance. That is, to have an appearance like that you would actually need a HIGH Charisma (see: Hags and their 17-19 Cha).
Low Charisma makes you less notable, with less force of personality (ex you may be an "Antisocial SOB" but you'd hardly ever get in fights because nobody takes you seriously).
Which, in many cases, is actually an asset for a PC if they have a Face character in the party to handle the necessary face t face interactions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... no. Sorry, but no. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what RPG numbers are set up to do.
RPG numbers are meant to indicate whether something goes your way or not. Yes, this means a high charisma character can be a nasty bastard, but when he wants things to happen, they happen the way he wants them to - see Hags and their 17-19 Cha. Low Charisma does not automatically make you 'less notable'; nor does it mean you have a less forceful personality (which, in part, is found in Wisdom). A low Charisma means you are less likely to get your way. Intimidate? Oh, you're going to get in their face, or make your threat, and they may well take your threat seriously, but they won't react in such a way as to be favorable to you - because that's what the numbers mean, what the results track. You may be handsome and charming as all get out, but without that high CHA, you come off as a slick, slimy, snake-oil salesman that people throw rotten vegetables at, stone, run out of town, etc. If your huge fighter with the low CHA tries to intimidate them, they may step back, then run for the sheriff, or slam the door in your face instead of whatever it was you wanted them to do.
Low CHA doesn't mean ugly; I'm sorry if I seemed to have given that impression. Low CHA means the same thing as low anything: 'not getting things to go your way'. I played an normal-actual-strength character who possessed, stat-wise, a 16 STR, because I said it wasn't bulk that was his 'strength', it was knowledge of leverage, technique, and weight distribution. A high Charisma can be charm (but the right kind of charm) or it can be a skill at how (and when) to be a badass. Force of personality can be a disadvantage more than an advantage; trust me, I know that one all too well, because a lot of people simply don't like to take direction when presented forcefully.
So a low Cha doesn't automatically mean you don't get in fights, nor that people don't take you seriously; it means social situations don't fall out the way you want them to fall out. The way that that happens may well be entirely situational; it may be influenced by your other stats, and how they're presented. So while the intimidation target of the bland, weakling mage might laugh in his face as you suggest, the intimidation target of the bulked-out fully-kitted barbarian rager might draw and strike first. Either way, your intimidation attempt fails ...
I've seen people say the infamous phrase "I'm a roleplayer, not a rollplayer!", but what strikes me from that statement is the assertion that one cannot be both.
Is that really what people think?
For example, I myself am both. I love making a character concept and background and then properly playing that character, but I also love taking a character concept and making the most out of that character build that I can.
It just kinda seems off to me when a player will focus on one aspect and bash the other aspect, as it seems to be that they are both part of this game and both things that I draw enjoyment from. How do you wonderful people of the forums feel about this?
Fav post ever. I know a guy who is pretty much just a roll player, which is fine except when he ruins the game for everyone with how powerful he is (in one 8th level party he was in his necromancer had an undead that was CR 13 before he turned it into an undead monstrosity as one of his four undead minions, it also resurrected upon dying automatically) and I admit I get pretty tired of him telling me what I'm doing isn't optimal or the best thing I could do.
I like my concepts to inspire my mechanics, not the other way around. I'm not saying others can't do the inverse by any means, so don't tell me to. Seems fair enough right? Just don't ruin everyone else's fun while you do your thing.
|
Anyone who uses the term roll player with a straight face defines them in such a way that they're exclusive. Roll-players are defined as people who don't play in the fashion approved by the person making the distinction. Role-players are defined as people who do play in the fashion approved by the people making the distinction.Unfortunately, this is more often than not the case.
...I still stand by the argument that this is a fundamental difference between old school (basic D&D: 1 race/class, AD&D: very limted multi-classing) vrs new school (I buy a book and there is a class in their and I want it gimmie gimmie). The trend I see is old school = roleplayers, new school = optomizers.
Note to New school people: Don't listen to what you hear, you aren't a dork if you roleplay. It is ok to indulge in what D&D is all about, roleplay. If you try it and have a good DM, I guarantee you'll have a blast and won't care so much about optomizing.
Okay, that's it.
I'm hereby proposing a new logical fallacy. It's not a new idea, but maybe with a catchy name (like the Oberoni Fallacy) it will catch on.
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.
Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.
Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.
(I admit that there are some diehards on both sides -- the RP fanatics who refuse to optimize as if strong characters were the mark of the Devil and the min/max munchkins who couldn't RP their way out of a paper bag without setting it on fire -- though I see these as extreme examples. The vast majority of people are in between, and thus the
Sounds like Tempest Stormwind enjoys his philosophy courses. You don't see this kind of explanation out there very often. Most of the time, these boards are full of people offering Red Herrings to the OP's thread. Hehe. Nicely done Tempest. :D
The two are not mutually exclusive.
How 3.x and Pathfinder are designed lends itself to designing a character for "rollplay" regardless of how you intend to "roleplay." If you are rewarded through design for doing something, you will likely do that thing. Conversely, if you are not rewarded through design for doing something, you will likely not do that thing. The general trend in Pathfinder is "higher numbers good, lower numbers bad."
In typical form, roleplay should go beyond the system into the intangible spaces that exist in the game itself. So many games do not revolve around the PCs lives unless the PCs are in some sort of predetermined content. To look at roleplay: downtime is just as important as uptime.
Someone brought up Shadowrun, a system where the PCs are typically just scraping by until they get powerful (which can take a really long time) and then begin to start making ends meet on a regular basis. The very reason most Shadowrunners even run in the shadows is because they need to in order to pay their bills. The entire system is more or less built around the terror that you might not be able to pay your bills, and, as a result, will be on the streets. A very real threat, and one that comes from reality. Did I mention dying is really easy as well?
In Pathfinder you can achieve a similar system by imposing lifestyle costs, however this more or less goes against WBL, which is more or less held up as a goldstandard by most of the GMs I've known. Let me put it this way: it is more rare to see someone playing an honest to Kyonin elven noble who actually acts and is statted like a noble in some way, shape or form.
If you want to implement system that encourage more in-universe roleplay then consider trashing the WBL system, and instead embracing the idea of standard treasure amounts. However, these sold at half value actually set the PCs below WBL if they don't take crafting feats, hence why you should allow and encourage they be used.
I guess to take this on its own tangent: the WBL system asks nothing from you aside from you making a cool character that exists in a vacuum who is a complete badarse.
The standard treasure system encourages you to craft your own gear, sinking valuable skill points into otherwise worthless skills, and take crafting feats, effectively wasting feats in order to be "in line" with standard WBL.
If you want less "rollplay" and more "roleplay" then make the mechanics reflect that. It isn't nearly as hard as it sounds.
My research:
(level): (experience required to hit the next level) = (Number of CR x encounters required to hit next level if 4 party members) = (amount of gold from said encounters per PC if 4) (Wealth by level if using this) VS (standard wealth by level)
1: 2000 = 20 = 1300 gp each (WBL: Starting)
2: 3000 = 20 = 2750 gp each (WBL: 1300/2= [650 gp]) vs (1,000 gp)
3: 4000 = 20 = 4000 gp each (WBL: 4050/2= [2,025 gp]) vs (3,000 gp)
4: 6000 = 20 = 5750 gp each (WBL: 8050/2= [4,025 gp]) vs (6,000 gp)
5: 8000 = 20 = 7750 gp each (WBL: 13800/2= [6,900 gp]) vs (10,500 gp)
6: 12000 = 20 = 10000 gp each (WBL: 21550/2= [10,775 gp]) vs (16,000 gp)
7: 16000 = 20 = 13000 gp each (WBL: 31550/2= [15,775 gp]) vs (23,500 gp)
8: 24000 = 20 = 16750 gp each (WBL: 44550/2= [22,275 gp]) vs (33,000 gp)
9: 30000 = 19 = 20187 gp each (WBL: 61300/2= [30,650 gp]) vs (46,000 gp)
10: 50000 = 21 = 28612 gp each (WBL: 81487/2= [40,743 gp]) vs (62,000 gp)
11: 65000 = 20 = 35000 gp each (WBL: 110099/2= [55,049 gp]) vs (82,000 gp)
12: 95000 = 20 = 45000 gp each (WBL: 145099/2= [72,549 gp]) vs (108,000 gp)
13: 130000 = 20 = 58000 gp each (WBL: 190099/2= [95,049 gp]) vs (140,000 gp)
14: 190000 = 20 = 75000 gp each (WBL: 248099/2= [124,049 gp]) vs (185,000 gp)
15: 255000 = 20 = 97500 gp each (WBL: 323099/2= [161,549 gp]) vs (240,000 gp)
16: 410000 = 21 = 131250 gp each (WBL: 420599/2= [210,299 gp]) vs (315,000 gp)
17: 500000 = 20 = 160000 gp each (WBL: 551849/2= [275,924 gp]) vs (410,000 gp)
18: 750000 = 20 = 205000 gp each (WBL: 711849/2= [355,924 gp]) vs (530,000 gp)
19: 1050000 = 21 = 1113000 gp each (WBL: 916849/2= [458,424 gp]) vs (685,000 gp)
20: (WBL: 2029849/2= [1,014,924 gp]) vs (880,000 gp)
2,029,849 gp each = 1300+2750+4000+5750+7750+10000+13000+16750+20187+28612+35000+45000+58000+75 000+97500+131250+160000+205000+1113000
Everything sold for 1/2 = 1,014,924 gp each
Enjoy.
Again, people will do what is mechanically encouraged. If you mechanically incentivize someone to play a pure mercenary character, yet expect them to act like a "good" person, then you're going to be sorely mistaken when they turn into someone wearing all black and cackling with lightning behind them.
Make the ~mechanics~ work towards what you want, and you'll be golden. The mechanics are, by default, geared towards vacuum characters that are transitory in the Pathfinder universe, that pop into existence and then out again. If you want more, make them live in the world.
If you look at most of the "adventurers" who "retire" and by retire I mean don't die but stop adventuring, they tend to run their own businesses. They're doing things in a town, like having a family, training their children to be really good at doing stuff and, in general, settling down. The primary fault of players is that, mechanically, they are not encouraged to seed the world with their own characters, but instead are seeking the next big payday so they can get bigger gear.
The adventurers who retire, they founded a business or were hired to a well paying position that takes advantage of their skills. They have a good supply of bread and milk, so to speak, coming in. They can now sit back, relax, grow old and die happy.
Encourage your Players to seed characters into the world, and then mechanically reward them for doing so. You'll think of something.
I see it as a spectrum you exist on, not a binary one or the other kinda scenario.
I'm mostly about crunch... but I also like the RP aspects of the game.
I don't SUPER tweak, but I do tweak.
I don't write pages of background, but I do write up backgrounds.
They aren't mutually exclusive, they are two different 'stats' that you have.
I have a 16 in "rollplay" and a 13 in "roleplay". :D
I see it as a spectrum you exist on, not a binary one or the other kinda scenario.
I'm mostly about crunch... but I also like the RP aspects of the game.
I don't SUPER tweak, but I do tweak.
I don't write pages of background, but I do write up backgrounds.
They aren't mutually exclusive, they are two different 'stats' that you have.
I have a 16 in "rollplay" and a 13 in "roleplay". :D
FYI, a spectrum would actually mean that you have to be only good at one or mediocre at both. A better analogy is that the two are along different axis so you can be bad or good at either or both. I am assuming that is what you are trying to say.
FYI, a spectrum would actually mean that you have to be only good at one or mediocre at both. A better analogy is that the two are along different axis so you can be bad or good at either or both. I am assuming that is what you are trying to say.I see it as a spectrum you exist on, not a binary one or the other kinda scenario.
I'm mostly about crunch... but I also like the RP aspects of the game.
I don't SUPER tweak, but I do tweak.
I don't write pages of background, but I do write up backgrounds.
They aren't mutually exclusive, they are two different 'stats' that you have.
I have a 16 in "rollplay" and a 13 in "roleplay". :D
Yeah I switched to the stat model at the end there.
It's not a spectrum at all.
I'm still drinking my coffee, it's before 7am here.
These are not mutually exclusive, but I think a lot of the problem comes from rules lawyers around the table insisting on arguing every little rule, and wasting everybody else roleplaying time.
Mostly, a behaviour issue.
I hate those guys.
It's okay to disagree with something, or want to clarify something... but if you can't make your point in 30 seconds or less during a game, save it for later.
I know the "wrong rules lawyers", who also purposefully build weak PCs, or, at least, seem to.
Yes.
The showboat, scene-hogging drama major, can also be the your group's "wrong rules lawyer".
I played with one.
I tend to make optimized death-machines, then ignore most of their abilities or self nerf (example, my current hunter is always drunk, so I arbitrarily apply a penalty to all my rolls, like last game, was "-2 drunk" for the session)-but when required, pull out all the stops...
It's not showboating, it's playing on the groups level most of the time, and saving their bacon occasionally due to higher level of system mastery. :D
These are not mutually exclusive, but I think a lot of the problem comes from rules lawyers around the table insisting on arguing every little rule, and wasting everybody else roleplaying time.
Mostly, a behaviour issue.
What sort of "rules lawyering" were they doing. Because there are at least two types, one of which is pretty benign and comes from players who just want fairness and consistency. The other is basically done by a CRB wielding munchkin.
|
What sort of "rules lawyering" were they doing. Because there are at least two types, one of which is pretty benign and comes from players who just want fairness and consistency. The other is basically done by a CRB wielding munchkin.These are not mutually exclusive, but I think a lot of the problem comes from rules lawyers around the table insisting on arguing every little rule, and wasting everybody else roleplaying time.
Mostly, a behaviour issue.
Hmm.
Neither really. A different beast. Perhaps I am not quite using the right term.
One that begins to discuss, debate, and otherwise envelop the attention of all to the rules subject they wish to bring forth. Not necessarily for strategic gain, but, seemingly, for merely attention. To be right, so that another is wrong.
More of the thespian, in rules lawyer guise.
What sort of "rules lawyering" were they doing. Because there are at least two types, one of which is pretty benign and comes from players who just want fairness and consistency. The other is basically done by a CRB wielding munchkin.These are not mutually exclusive, but I think a lot of the problem comes from rules lawyers around the table insisting on arguing every little rule, and wasting everybody else roleplaying time.
Mostly, a behaviour issue.
Yeah. Like most of the terms in these sorts of debates, "rules lawyer" can mean different things to different people. I'm pretty sure half of why these discussions keep coming up is that everyone defines their terms differently.
But yeah, "rules lawyer" pretty much just means anyone who make a habit of arguing over/referring back to the RAW. Which can mean anything from a guy twisting the RAW as hard as he can to get away with craziness to the guy who always tells the group how the rules are supposed to work when they're unclear. And yeah, sometimes they can be a real boon if the group's GM is the type to like making lots of on-the-spot house rules because "It makes sense to me that..."
More of the thespian, in rules lawyer guise.Mostly, a behaviour issue.What sort of "rules lawyering" were they doing...
Ah, yes, those - that's not a rules lawyer, that's an attention hog, one who just happens to be using the rules as their way of getting the attention centered on them. As a RPer of whatever stripe, I despise them - because they're slowing down the game, hogging the spotlight, etc. Preferred method of dealing with them: generous high-velocity application of largest local telephone book.
" The Wyrm Ouroboros
Nice explanation on charisma,
|
I must have a bad definition for these terms. My understanding of "rollplay" is that it is the absence of "roleplay".
I have never equated it with the mechanics of the game. It's merely someone who rolls dice with no corresponding descriptive dialogue.
"I attack." *rolls* "I hit." *rolls* "X damage. I'll move here and end my turn."
I think everyone takes that kind of action from time to time. So, I'm not trying to shame anyone who does that. Some just do it more than others. Occasionally, you find someone who does it almost exclusively. That is what I would term a "rollplayer".
The thing is that descriptive dialogue is not roleplaying.
Roleplaying is making decisions in the shoes of your character.
On that basis, how you fluff your actions is completely irrelevant to whether or not you are roleplaying. What actions you are choosing to make is relevant. Someone who shouts out "I HACK THE ORC WITH MY LEGENDARY GREATAXE "GORESLASHER" AND SCREAM "GLORY TO MIGHTY TORAG AND DEATH TO HIS ENEMIES"" isn't really making a different decision to "I hit the orc with my axe". Not in any meaningful sense. So they are pretty much doing the same amount of roleplay. One of them is probably also being a method actor (which is OK) while the other isn't (also OK), but neither of them are any more of a "rollplayer" than the other. That's why a lot of the people on this thread find the term meaningless. Roleplaying is not speaking in first person or saying rousing speeches(especially with a -1 Diplomacy), so the lack of these isn't really a negative from a roleplaying perspective (which is how the rollplayer term is generally used). Not to say that people don't stop roleplaying sometimes, but usually that is due to some metagame aspect* and that is actually the thing that should be discussed instead of throwing around some silly pejorative.
*Not all metagaming is bad either despite it implicitly stopping roleplay. Accepting random people into the party...
This says it all. I suspect when most thing of the extreme end of the "roleplaying" term, they thing of extreme method acting. This sometimes comes with the assumption that the characters are somehow mechanically inferior to the hardcore number players, which are seen as on the other side of the spectrum. I don't see that as the case, as there are most likely loads of people who don't fall exclusively on any side. It ends up being just a need to compartmentalize people into a group, when no single group really fits. I think it's just a current sign of the time that you see all over, with people throwing around the terms "liberal" and "conservative" as attacks. To me, it's just something to disregard.
Some people like to play a tactical, interactive miniatures game; some people like to play a method acting game; and others fall in between.
There is no right / wrong way to play.
Some people only see the world in Black & White, other people see Shades of Grey all around.
Sadly its mentally easier to reduce everything to two distinct states. It is also self-assuring to "having determined what what is" and thus being self-righteous of voicing this opinion openly everywhere. The Black&White-ers are just louder than the Grey-ers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, the argument of the other.
Here's a secret; there is no them, only us.
Ah, the argument of the other.
Here's a secret; there is no them, only us.
This clearly shows you are one of them!
(Don't worry, Trogdar; when Dave says 'them', he means 'us'.)
Thanks, BoomerNeb.
Some people only see the world in Black & White, other people see Shades of Grey all around.
Sadly its mentally easier to reduce everything to two distinct states. It is also self-assuring to "having determined what what is" and thus being self-righteous of voicing this opinion openly everywhere. The Black&White-ers are just louder than the Grey-ers.
To be fair, the alignment system encourages people to see everything related to the game in strict categories with no blurring of the lines.
Some people only see the world in Black & White, other people see Shades of Grey all around.
Sadly its mentally easier to reduce everything to two distinct states. It is also self-assuring to "having determined what what is" and thus being self-righteous of voicing this opinion openly everywhere. The Black&White-ers are just louder than the Grey-ers.
So... You're saying there are two distinct groups of people: the black&whiter's and the greyer's? And you go on to say that only black&whiter's would categorize people in such a self-righteous way... by grouping them into two distinct states and denouncing one?
What color is the line that divided the black&whites from the greys?
So... You're saying there are two distinct groups of people: the black&whiter's and the greyer's?
Well..... there are also the people who see the world in colour, we just don't like talking about those abominations :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some people can roleplay but can't optimize. Some people can optimize but not roleplay. Some people can do both, some can't do either. Two different activities, partially complemental, partially independant.
As others have said, I think these two are more co-dependant than they are independant. As fake healer said, "people who don't care about the number crunching don't care enough about the game to put any effort into their roleplaying, either", often.
Because, as The Wyrm Ouroboros said, different concepts justify different builds. And without proper knowledge of the available options in the game, and how they can affect each other, one can't "optimize" his character to fit his build. Mysterious Stranger cites a typical example: some "role player" has a concept really ancored in his mind, and disses "roll playing", but then gets uppidy when his character does nor perform as he envisionned him doing. The character was made with not only disregard for game mechanics, but with contempt for them, with the obvious result of a very very poor character. Because "roll playing", or "optimization", isn't just about making the most overpowered characters one can think of, it's about making a character that best fits one's goals. Want the best healer on earth? Most people will say healers are sub-par, but if you REALLY want to make a healer anyways, shouldn't you try to make the best one you can? Because if, in the end, you end up with a character that you defined by his ability to heal, and you realize he's bad at pretty much everything, even healing, how much fun are you going to have "roleplaying" this "great healer of the lands"?
The very definition of roleplaying is contentious, though. Some limit roleplaying to narrative elements, such as writing a long backstory, drawing out 100s of pictures of what the hero looks like, writing diaries, and such. Others limit it to the social aspect, and it's all about the talk, insisting on long dialogues with NPCs and strongly disliking any rolls for skills such as diplomacy, bluff, or even int checks. Some here have mentionned active roleplaying, saying none of all that matters, it's what the character does that's roleplaying: his actions define his persona. I don't believe roleplaying limits itself to all of these aspects, but I also don't find it reasonnable to expect an average player to be masters of all of these aspects. People who are perfect writers, storytellers, actors, artists, strategists, and so on, who can think of a character, write up a novel to detail who he is and how he got there, create art to share his vision to his peers, master the mechanics of the game to perfectly emulate the concept as per the rules, and then narrate an inspiring story as his character progresses through the game... I don't know of anyone who can do all of that. But all of that is roleplaying, in my book, and we each do according to our affinities.
Personally, the ones who make the distinction, ESPECIALLY if they call them mutually exclusive, and flaunt their superiority for being "roleplayers" and not "roll players", are usually the worst, and the most obnoxious. I've had the luck of not playing with such players, but I've heard many stories over the years, and I consider this a blessing. I preffer to play with people who don't care, than people who judge others by their own arbitrary standards.
As a note about backstories, in the games I play, they are mandatory, and I agree with this. Everyone has a past, and the past is our most defining feature. It offers a point of stability and reference to characters, especially for those who don't have narrative tendencies and aren't overly expressive about how their charater feels about the things around him. By having a point of origin, one can look at their actions and determine in what way they are evolving. It's also a great tool for players to interact with each other and for GMs to create plot hooks from. To those claiming backstories are a BAD thing, to me, that's just a symptom of bad roleplaying skills. Characters, like people, evolve. They adapt. Odds are, the character's adventuring career is quite different than what's in the backstory. If the backstory is limiting opportunities, it's being handled wrong.
While the two aren't at all mutually exclusive, there's a tangential question about a player's ultimate motivation and... maybe what could be called "meta-perspective".
Say you join a group of people with both solid system mastery and a good sense of roleplaying, who insist on using rather unforgiving ability rolls. Your character comes out workable but hardly heroic. They smile and say 'hey, looks like you're playing the underdog this time'.
To me, a person who is truly able to get into the roleplaying aspect of a game in-and-of-itself should be able to get into that role; who doesn't love cheering for the determined underdog? Some people would be extremely unhappy about taking on such a role - and that's not "wrong", since people are there for enjoyment and enjoy different things. I'm sure almost nobody would like to play that kind of roll all the time. But it opens another side to the 'roleplaying' question - sure, you can roleplay the heck out of Sir Awesome. Can you enjoy the experience of roleplaying Mr. Middling?
While the two aren't at all mutually exclusive, there's a tangential question about a player's ultimate motivation and... maybe what could be called "meta-perspective".
Say you join a group of people with both solid system mastery and a good sense of roleplaying, who insist on using rather unforgiving ability rolls. Your character comes out workable but hardly heroic. They smile and say 'hey, looks like you're playing the underdog this time'.
To me, a person who is truly able to get into the roleplaying aspect of a game in-and-of-itself should be able to get into that role; who doesn't love cheering for the determined underdog? Some people would be extremely unhappy about taking on such a role - and that's not "wrong", since people are there for enjoyment and enjoy different things. I'm sure almost nobody would like to play that kind of roll all the time. But it opens another side to the 'roleplaying' question - sure, you can roleplay the heck out of Sir Awesome. Can you enjoy the experience of roleplaying Mr. Middling?
Let's add a little context here. It's not just trying to enjoy playing Mr. Middling. It's trying to enjoy playing Mr. Middling with a party consisting of Sir Awesome, the Sorcerer Supreme, and Pantheistic Jesus.
I'm not interested in whose game is purer or or more advanced. I'm definitely not interested in calling someone out or shaming them for how they spend their leisure time. But, I'm also not interested in handing out participation trophies.
Like it or not, their are verbal (and/or written) narrative elements to playing a tabletop rpg.
It's really not a question of system mastery OR narration. It's only a question of participating in the story or just showing up with a character sheet and dice. You can be a terrific optimizer and a wonderful roleplayer. You can be a terrible optimizer and a terrific roleplayer. You can be a great optimizer and a complete rollplayer. You can be a horrible optimizer and a total rollplayer.
Let's add a little context here. It's not just trying to enjoy playing Mr. Middling. It's trying to enjoy playing Mr. Middling with a party consisting of Sir Awesome, the Sorcerer Supreme, and Pantheistic Jesus.
Exactly so. Can it still be enjoyed for the experience of playing the role? Again, I don't thing there's anything wrong with saying 'I wouldn't enjoy that'. Its just to point out the difference in motivation between someone who could enjoy it and someone who, for whatever reason, wouldn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's add a little context here. It's not just trying to enjoy playing Mr. Middling. It's trying to enjoy playing Mr. Middling with a party consisting of Sir Awesome, the Sorcerer Supreme, and Pantheistic Jesus.Exactly so. Can it still be enjoyed for the experience of playing the role? Again, I don't thing there's anything wrong with saying 'I wouldn't enjoy that'. Its just to point out the difference in motivation between someone who could enjoy it and someone who, for whatever reason, wouldn't.
Here is the subtlety though.
People almost never enjoy RPGs for a single reason.
Here, take a look at this article. Eight Kinds of Fun.
When you make a player go into a group of demigods with Sir Roger the Normal, several things can happen.
Challenge: The player can feel unhappy because anything capable of being a threat to the demigods crushes them. So long as they are with the demigods, every single opportunity to succeed will either be effortlessly handled by one of the demigods, or it will be beyond the player's means to accomplish (but possibly a challenge to the others). The only way this can be broken is by GM fiating situations where the player can succeed, but shockingly enough a player that wants to beat a challenge generally doesn't enjoy the GM handing them a victory on a plate.
Fellowship: The player can feel unhappy because they know they aren't contributing to the team. They enjoy teamwork, but their character's uselessness prohibits them from actually performing meaningful teamwork. They are such a liability that the best thing they can do for the good of the team is hand all their magic items over to the useful people and go stand in the corner while Sir Awesome and his band wreak face.
Expression: The player can feel unhappy because their terrible roles means they can't create the sort of character they want to.
There are at least three types of enjoyment where playing a weak character in a group of demigods can ruin their fun. Or at least, they have to lean on other things they enjoy in order to have fun while playing. A player might enjoy discovering parts of the setting and finding out interesting things, but they also enjoy helping others succeed. Being useless probably won't inhibit their enjoyment of Discovery, but the game won't satisfy Fellowship. They might still have fun, but they won't have nearly as much, and the game will feel like it's missing something.
So really, there are a whole bunch of issues that can come with being made to play a weak character in a group of demigods. Describing it in terms of the player's "Ultimate Motivation" is a little misleading, because everyone has several motivations with different priorities on each. While some players won't really be affected that much by playing Bilbo Baggins next to Gandelf, many others will, and for a number of reasons.
Which is where the GM comes in. Because while Sir Awesome, Sorcerer Supreme, and Pantheistic Jesus are all great (obviously), because they are who they are, by definition they can't be great at everything. This, in my opinion, is where the issue lies with people who tout DPS over 'yes, but do you sit here??'
I love system knowledge. I am fantastic with system knowledge ... in a couple of other systems that are neither 3.x D&D or Pathfinder. Which means I adore people who have expert system knowledge in Pathfinder - but because the system is what it is, when you select one feat (or one feat path), you begin cutting yourself off from others. The guy who has a hyperoptimized archer (of whatever stripe) is going to have a problem with a shield-wall phalanx who are pressing him towards the edge of the cliff (presuming he can't teleport or handle the fall) - because they've taken control of the situation and defined the battlefield to favor them (shield wall, shield bash, bull rush / overrun, total cover) instead of him. Sir Awesome the Mounted Charging Knight ... will have issues, pretty serious ones, inside a city with its low overhangs and crookback alleyways.
My issue is - as always - people who talk about Sir Awesome, etc. as though they can handle everything, and deride Mr. Middling. When you approach them about situations, they talk about alternate builds that are designed to handle that situation, not the build they were originally talking about. Mr. Middling, however, is not so focussed as to be unable to handle the problem; he can handle lots of problems, that's what he's designed to do. His design isn't Fire DPS, or the SuperCharge(TM); his design is 'soooo ... none of you brought rope, huh?' Toss up Lord Evil, Black Mage, and Demonspawn, specifically designed to face off against the Power Trio and you wind up having Mr. Middling being able to move to take advantage of those (increasingly large with level) gaps in the design.
My experience is, and has always been, that those who argue ReP vs RlP are either going to express derision for the numbers (forgetting that the numbers help define the character), or else shower contempt on the Number 2 - forgetting that while Sir Awesome is #1 in one thing, he's #58 in all the other possibilities, and thus Mr. Middling (who is #6 in a lot of the possibilites, and #22 in all the rest) is going to squash him like a toad when the fight gets defined in those other ways.
That last, right there, is the GM's job: not allowing the Power Trio to define the situation all the time. It takes weeks worth of maneuvering to get to a battlefield, because you're always trying to make the situation favor your army; this applies equally well to the adventuring party. Sure, Sir Awesome always wants a clear and open field to fight in, so he can SuperCharge(TM); what about the city, or the forest, or a rocky slope where everything is difficult terrain? What happens when the Power Trio are riding along through a natural fog that puts everything at arm's reach, and they get ambushed? It's the GM's job to make sure that the party is not adventuring on a permanent sunny late-summer day, in fields of clover, where everything is to their advantage.
And then suddenly Mr. Middling becomes the go-to guy, and hyperfocussing your character - while great for fighting Tarrasques and armies - is less of a pleasant prospect.
|
|
They are exclusive. I was around when the term roll play first started being used, and a lot of people misuse it today. It is, as a poster said before. A person who plays to roll the dice only. Doesn't care about descriptions, character concepts, story, etc. People used this when when they took an option that is not great and someone says "Why did you take that, it sucks". The person replies because I'm a roleplayer, not a rollplayer, meaning "I don't always go with what is going to get me the best result on the die." It was not meant to characterize people who take optimal choices. It was meant to characterize people who only make decisions based on the rolls and do not care about other aspects of the game.
Somewhere along the line, people who like to optimize starting to take this as in insult. When they heard it, they felt like it was a slight on them, because they didn't make"non-optimal" choices, and just had to defend themselves against against this apparent insult, (even though it was never meant to characterize them) and thus the argument was born. So yes true rollplaying as it was coined when the word was first used is mutually exclusive with roleplaying, because that was the purpose of the word in the first place. To identify the type of player that did not role play at. Why folks who like to build characters as good as they can have taken this word on to describe themselves is a mystery to me, but it is hilarious to see them defending it. But then we see this in in history all the time where people take a word they they understand, think it means something different and fight over it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My experience is, and has always been, that those who argue ReP vs RlP are either going to express derision for the numbers (forgetting that the numbers help define the character), or else shower contempt on the Number 2 - forgetting that while Sir Awesome is #1 in one thing, he's #58 in all the other possibilities, and thus Mr. Middling (who is #6 in a lot of the possibilites, and #22 in all the rest) is going to squash him like a toad when the fight gets defined in those other ways.
Ah, I found where your misconception lies. A truly optimized character cares little about their DPS beyond "sufficient" and instead focuses on being able to solve *all* problems. An "optimized" character that is only #1 at damage is in fact not an optimized character at all (beyond obviously being optimized for DPS). You think people tout Wizards as being #1 for their DPS? The reason full casters are more optimal choices then other classes who might have higher DPS is because unlike those other classes they can solve many many more problems extremely effectively.
You presume it's a misconception; it ain't. Every discussion I've seen here about 'how to build teh best XYZ' deals almost exclusively with damage, whether dealing it or avoiding it (DPS or AC). 'Optimization' does not mean 'versatile', because 'optimum' means best. With the sole exception being when you're specifically targeting versatility, 'optimized' means 'best choices', and while that's usually a best choice involving damage (DPS or AC), it is sometimes 'best choice' when it comes to one particular skill or focussed skill-set, like 'picking locks and avoiding traps'.
I would be very, very, very pleased for you to direct me to a conversation on the board where 'optimized' has to do with 'maximum versatility'. And please do remember that while a wizard may be generally versatile, they are under the requirement to plan out their spells before they go to town - which means they lock themselves into a mindset of some sort.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
....Literally every conversation about any spellcaster being powerful has to do with their versatility.
"Yeah but hurr durr they need to plan their spells" is meaningless. A Wizard can solve any problem thrown at them with a little planning, and any ones they potentially can't they can solve with a single minute of downtime.
And even if they "lock themselves into a mindset" (which is by nature NOT OPTIMAL) they can change that "mindset" daily.
Power and Options have always been intertwined in Pathfinder.
The more problems you can solve on your own, the more powerful you are.
A person with high damage is able to solve a single kind of problem (killing enemies).
A person with a high defense (Saves + AC + Non-AC defenses) is able to solve another kind (surviving enemies).
A character who can cast Teleport solves another (travel).
Or Fly/Overland Flight (land based obstacles).
Or use many Combat Maneuvers (nonlethal takedowns).
Or bypass encounters altogether (skills, be they Social skills, or Stealth, or Survival, etc.).
And many, many more things.
Now look at most class' spell lists. See where power and versatility are synonymous.
A Wizard can do ALL of those things. From the humble Fireball (killing enemies) to the potent Mirror Image (defenses), to overcoming travel and obstacles listed above, and even Combat maneuvers (Telekinesis, Hydraulic Push, etc.), and most spellcasters have a large number of skills as well (Clerics and Sorcerers being the glaring exceptions).
Having versatility IS the best choice in all cases. Because if you only have one trick...that trick isn't going to be optimal in most situations.
Now, you may be optimal in one area and sub-optimal in others, but that generally means a less optimal character.
Mr. Middling is sub-optimal because he's good at nothing, but only marginally less optimal than the guy who's only good at one thing.
A person who is "3rd place" in 4 areas and middling in two more is still more optimal than someone who is 1st place in one area and middling to bad in the rest.