. . . given my upbringing, I always assumed "eco-hippy" was an accolade.@LazarX
I am not trying to insult or attack you in any way.
I am however making sure I understand what you are saying.
Is it your stance that a player that, to paraphrase, "Insists that the only thing he should be required to do is roll the dice" is a negative thing?
Well, I had to do more than "insist the only thing I should be required to do is roll dice" when I was playing boardgames as a kid, right? (I don't mean Risk, I mean Clue)
Y'know, I think I remember a Dragon magazine column where Gygax preferred roll-play to role-play, but don't quote me on that, it's been 30 years.
What about Hack'n'Slash, does that feel pejorative?
Honestly, I am against any kind of non-definitive and functional labeling.
Changing the exact words used for a slur does not make it any less a slur.
Just to be clear an example of acceptable to me labeling is saying "That person is approximately 5 feet 6 inches tall and is wearing a "support Tesla Motors" button so most likely likes the tesla motors company and may have some beliefs on either the environment or cars."
An unacceptable to me labeling is saying "That person is approximately 5 feet 6 inches tall and is wearing a "support Tesla Motors" button so most likely is a eco-hippy."
My personal feelings would agree with you on that label, it is none the less a label and some people find it a negative and offensive one, so I feel we should try to avoid it.
I don't care how you label me, just as long as you let me have a spot at your next open game! :) Rollplayer, roleplayer, murder hobo, whatever floats your boat. Just make sure I get to rolly roley murder hobo all over your next AP, okay?
Thanks!
He-who-cannot-be-labeled
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I usually ask for a bare minimum description, for nearly all skills, and if time permits, spells/abilities/attacks.
In the "I roll diplomacy, I get X" example, I would usually ask something like "Okay, can you give me some idea of what you are saying, or how you are doing it, or what you are trying to accomplish?"
That is it.
I would do the same, if I said their was a hole in the ground, and a player simply says "I roll acrobatics, I get X."
A simple 1 to 2 sentence is really all I ask for. I have to have some idea what is going on.
Without anything to go on, that 35 diplomacy plays out as PC: "I like you." NPC: "You know what, I like you too. A lot actually."
For me, if you can give me just enough, to be able to describe the scene, then I am pleased.
Also, I don't care how eloquent your speech is. You are gonna need to roll some dice. I might use the trusty circumstance bonus, but I don't just give everything out for free.
I take offense at death vagrancy. Take some of the money you're earning, Mended, and rent an apartment or something! Eesh. You'll find your mind at ease when you don't have to carry a treasury worth of equipment in your Bags of Holding all the time...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I take offense at death vagrancy. Take some of the money you're earning, Mended, and rent an apartment or something! Eesh. You'll find your mind at ease when you don't have to carry a treasury worth of equipment in your Bags of Holding all the time...
Most of the time the money I "earn" comes from selling the stuff I "found" on the bodies I murdered. Which forces me to move out of most places pretty quickly to avoid a savage beating and or jail sentence by the local militia or law enforcement. Thus, I'm a hobo. I'm right now saving up enough murder hobo funds to buy a portable hole, so I have some solace from hoboing and murdering once in a while. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's a valid form of playing a game.I think describing your character's actions and feelings is just as valid a form of role play as making Shakespeare gestures and acting out your character's demeanor by speaking his words.
Am I incorrect in playing that way?
Do you think just rolling your skill check, without describing your character's actions and feelings is just as valid a form of role play?
I guess you'd have describe your character's actions enough to make them relevant to the game, but that's a valid way of playing. Loathe as I am to admit it, there are tons of ways of playing the game that are perfectly valid which I don't personally enjoy.
I think it's a valid form of playing a game.I think describing your character's actions and feelings is just as valid a form of role play as making Shakespeare gestures and acting out your character's demeanor by speaking his words.
Am I incorrect in playing that way?
Do you think just rolling your skill check, without describing your character's actions and feelings is just as valid a form of role play?
So how often do you say "I roll Acrobatics, I got X." and then your GM has no idea if you want to jump horizontonally, jump vertically or move through a threatened area without provoking?
So how often do you say "I roll Acrobatics, I got X." and then your GM has no idea if you want to jump horizontonally, jump vertically or move through a threatened area without provoking?I think it's a valid form of playing a game.I think describing your character's actions and feelings is just as valid a form of role play as making Shakespeare gestures and acting out your character's demeanor by speaking his words.
Am I incorrect in playing that way?
Do you think just rolling your skill check, without describing your character's actions and feelings is just as valid a form of role play?
. . . About as often as I say, "I have been exiled from noble court, where my paramour died sitting at a window that looked out on the road I had sworn to return by; I was delayed through lamentable mischance, and so she drank the wine the viscount offered, knowing full well the cup was poisoned," and my GM has no idea who I'm talking to?
A player's actions, whether rollplaying or roleplaying, have to be relevant to the situation the DM is describing, but that's the only thing required to validate a form of play, imo.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have been in and out of this thread for a while now, and managed to stay quiet, but, can't hold back any longer, as I have been in literally dozens of the situations described, and played with and GM'd for most of the player types we keep referring to, including someone on the autistic spectrum (he was a super cool kid, I miss playing along side and GMing for him actually).
So here goes. As a player, it so happens I am very very good at role play, why, because I am very good at being "in character." I adopt a speech pattern (different from my normal one) for each character I play. I make decisions based on the personality and background of my character, whether or not it is the best mechanical thing to do or not. I easily slip into IC speech, and having been an actor, tend to adopt mannerisms different from my own and specific to the character I am playing (whether as GM NPC or player PC). So, that is me, and yes, I combine this with my "roleplayer" skills, which I am also good at, why, because I have been playing for 25 years, I know the system(s) very well, and for cripes sake, I co-own, write for, edit for, layout, and play test for a 3pp.
Now, here comes the important bit, I do NOT expect any of my players (as a GM) or my fellow adventures (as a player) to DO the same things I do. What I do expect is that there is effort to play the game, play a character, and most importantly have FUN.
What is NOT fun is feeling like the odd man out, or the "weak link." It is the job of the GM to adjust to his or her players as best they can. It is the job of the players to play the game, and work with the GM to craft an interesting story, and again, have fun. As long as no one is refusing to participate, the level of skill a person has in rollplay or roleplay should not define their level of involvement in the game.
You can be both. You can be neither. You can be one or the other.
It's not a point on a line. It's a point on a plane. Rollplaying is the X-axis, and roleplaying is the Y-axis. Imagine it a 20-point scale, from -10 to 10, with 10 being emphatic love, zero being "I can take it or leave it", and -10 being "bugger that crap, I hate it.
Personally I'm about a 7 rollplaying, 9 roleplaying, (and -9 if you add a third axis, "puzzles, mazes, riddles, and other stuff the player needs to solve instead of his character"), where my wife is a 4 rollplay, -9 roleplaying (and 10 puzzles, etc).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can be both. You can be neither. You can be one or the other.
It's not a point on a line. It's a point on a plane. Rollplaying is the X-axis, and roleplaying is the Y-axis. Imagine it a 20-point scale, from -10 to 10, with 10 being emphatic love, zero being "I can take it or leave it", and -10 being "bugger that crap, I hate it.
Personally I'm about a 7 rollplaying, 9 roleplaying, (and -9 if you add a third axis, "puzzles, mazes, riddles, and other stuff the player needs to solve instead of his character"), where my wife is a 4 rollplay, -9 roleplaying (and 10 puzzles, etc).
We're still operating with two different definitions of "rollplayer" here...
It's difficult to have this conversation when there's one group using it categorically, one group using it indiscriminately, and one group using it pejoratively.
If you are operating off of the original definition, comments like thegreenteagamer's don't make a whole lot of sense. I understand his point, but if we're not going to agree on a single definition, then this conversation is going to keep swirling around on itself.
In the 1980's, "rollplayer" was applied to someone who treated a roleplaying game like a board game (...)
wait, that's not the definition of rollplaying anymore?
Well, it's also . . . I mean look, the thread title asks if people think the two are mutually exclusive. We're probably never going to get a more informative answer than "Some do, some don't."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just want people to be engaged. Whether that's using the dice to represent their engagement or their words/actions, I don't really care. In another thread I was just mentioning this desire.
If I present some detail in the gameworld as the GM, your job as a player in my game is to, well, PLAY with it. Just because you have a +13 on your Perception AND 20 minutes ago you said you were using your Perception to look for secret doors doesn't mean you just automatically see all of them. You still have to get involved, play.
You walk into a room with a tapestry. You have to touch the tapestry, move it, interact with it in some way to notice there's a secret door. Now you can declare that interaction by actually acting out or describing all of the actions OR you could just simply roll a Perception check but in either case you're playing with that detail.
So I guess for me personally no; there's no real distinction between the 2. There's just PLAYING and NOT PLAYING. If you're at my table and you're passively waiting for me to get to the monster fight of the hour then that's NOT PLAYING and I'd rather you move on to another table.
I think most of those terms now mean 'playing in a manner I don't like.' BADWRONGFUN!!!!In the 1980's, "rollplayer" was applied to someone who treated a roleplaying game like a board game (...)wait, that's not the definition of rollplaying anymore?
Which is completely different from the meaning of every other accusation in the Paizo Gamer Talk forum. It's not like we have any other words that just mean BADWRONGFUN.