PDA

View Full Version : A question Roll vs Role



Shinizak
2010-08-01, 02:07 AM
How much role-playing verses Roll-playing do you do? If your DM tried to make you Role-play more how well do you think you'd respond? And last but not least, what do you think you're respond best to if you were forced to role-play more?

Prodan
2010-08-01, 02:08 AM
How much role-playing verses Roll-playing do you do?
All lot.


If your DM tried to make you Role-play more how well do you think you'd respond?
Remind him later that he asked for it.


And last but not least, what do you think you're respond best to if you were forced to role-play more?
"Did somebody order a LARGE HAM (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LargeHam)?"

Bosh
2010-08-01, 02:26 AM
If your "roll playing" is so separate from your "role playing" that you can neatly distinguish them then that's probably a much bigger problem than whether you have more of one or the other. The whole point of RPGs is to integrate them so that they strengthen each other instead of undermining each other.

Vortling
2010-08-01, 02:40 AM
How much role-playing verses Roll-playing do you do? If your DM tried to make you Role-play more how well do you think you'd respond? And last but not least, what do you think you're respond best to if you were forced to role-play more?

You ask some of these questions like you're defining the role/rollplay as two diametrically opposite items. Is this the case? I know I don't.

To answer your questions generally. I roleplay and roll play plenty, what with being the DM more often than playing. I wouldn't mind if my DM pushed for more roleplaying. If I were forced to roleplay more well... Half the fun of roleplaying is pretending to be Brian Blessed, and the other half is violence.

lord_khaine
2010-08-01, 02:42 AM
How much role-playing verses Roll-playing do you do? If your DM tried to make you Role-play more how well do you think you'd respond? And last but not least, what do you think you're respond best to if you were forced to role-play more?

You act as if it were 2 seperate things.

Sindri
2010-08-01, 02:54 AM
Roll-playing is how you fight, role-playing is why you fight. If you fight for no reason, your character sucks despite dealing 3000 points per round. In theory, the two don't interact with each other, but in practice the more powerful characters always seem to have less of a personality. I'd take a fighter or monk over a god-mage in most games, unless it would lead to immediate death.

I rarely have real problems with lack of personality, but I've seen players that come to every session with a new build idea because they haven't figured out that the reason that they're getting bored with the character is their lack of depth, rather than a flaw in the build. It's sort of sad.

Zaydos
2010-08-01, 03:35 AM
Okay to answer the first question: In D&D I tend to find myself in kick-down-the-door style games (the exception was a d20 modern game but I don't like d20 modern) and don't get as many chances as I'd like to roleplay and explore my character :smallfrown: Unfortunately my own (D&D) games tend not to have as much roleplaying as I'd like :smallfrown: Non-D&D I've mainly done completely rules free role-playing and even then I was GMing, the storyteller whatever the term was it was just me and a friend having fun cause we were bored and they loved Yu-Gi-Oh... so possibly bad fanfic author would be most appropriate but I never wrote down a word and made stuff up as I went.

In D&D I try to roleplay as much as I can. In my last game I played in this took a bit since I built the character from the "this mechanic looks fun" perspective and it was really kick-down-the-door and kind of railroaded (I really enjoyed the game and it was one of the better DMs I've had because they at least made the adventures make sense and fun but the above stays true), but eventually I developed a character for my character and I made due by having him do things like talk to the other PCs and even some of the enemies in the middle of battle. He had an 8 Charisma, no training in Diplomacy, and still managed to get through two diplomatic challenges because I roleplayed him through them; and honestly one of those was probably the most fun encounter of the game and the one where I had the most feeling I would die. A lot of my warriors will talk to, or taunt, the enemy. My wizards will research magic, and if I can think up some spells will research them just to have their names on some spells.

If told to roleplay more? I'll try, might have to ask the DM for some advice on it, or to put in more encounters that can be roleplayed; or just to actually let us explore a town for once and talk to random peasants. It really depends upon the character. Some of them are Large Hams and there's no way around it. Some of them are total nut-cases that if roleplayed to the hilt would be disruptive (although they tend to get more roleplaying in than normal already). Some of them are more sedate and would be a little harder to "role-play more".

The third question I will divide my answers into minor and major. Minor: chances to just talk to random people in town; interesting villagers (if my character is an aspiring young wizard, I'd enjoy a chance to talk to the town mage on the merits of various ways to perform spells; if I'm Valgus Dwarf Crusader who seeks to forge the Ultimate Armor I'd talk to smiths about various means of smelting and methods of artistry).
Major: The chance to get free non-mechanical benefits (for example I will not usually give 1000 GP to get knighted, but I will spend time to role-play getting it); adventures dealing with my character's goals and background (for example Valgus's clan forged a powerful axe from a piece of adamantine corrupted by a dark artifact and this lead to the destruction of his clan by goblins led by the man wielding said ax forged to kill them and an evil madman coming to steal the axe, an adventure that involves the axe, its wielder, or the man seeking will get responses); a chance to make an actual in game ally or companion (partially because I have nothing against PCs having cohorts, but I refuse to use feats for it, my stance is roleplay it or no cohorts for you).

I hope this has been helpful. May I ask what brought about the question?

Edit: Also to the above poster, I agree a build alone does not a character make. It is but the body of the golem and without the animating spirit it is only oversized full-plate

Bosh
2010-08-01, 04:24 AM
Roll-playing is how you fight, role-playing is why you fight. If you fight for no reason, your character sucks despite dealing 3000 points per round. In theory, the two don't interact with each other, but in practice the more powerful characters always seem to have less of a personality. I'd take a fighter or monk over a god-mage in most games, unless it would lead to immediate death.

Bah! I say bah!

When your character fights by jumping out bi-planes with a bungee cord tied around his waist (and a large triangular hat with a large feather on his head) in order to attack pilots of nearby enemy bi-plane with his rapier while swinging and bouncing through the air then you better believe that how you fight can be every bit as much roleplay as why your fight.

Note: I love the Spirit of the Century RPG.

A bit more seriously, combat is so much more fun if your combat decisions are informed by how your roleplay your character. Roleplaying doesn't mean talking with a funny accent, it means getting into the head of your character and that can be done while he's betting shot at as well (or better!) than any other time.

Strawberries
2010-08-01, 05:21 AM
I'll try to answer, but with my 6 month experience (all in play by post) - I'm really not an authority in the matter :smalltongue:.

First question:
If, by roll-play, you mean "play powerful character" then I don't, at all. But that's mainy because I suck at making powerful characters (I've only been playing for a few months, so...).
However I haven't been able to distinguish the two. It's possible that the pbp medium encourages roleplay, so that the two concepts aren't separated in my mind - I know it's perfectly possible to do both at the same time, as I've seen it done.

Second question:
My answer would be along the lines of :biggrin: Hell, yeah! :biggrin:, as that is the aspect of gaming I, as a player, find more enjoyable.

Third question:
Probably working with the DM to integrate the character into the setting. I discovered a thing I love to do is craft a small portion of the world around my character (I tend to think about family members, contacts, people I can't stand and the like). Also, politics. But that's because I love to play anarchists :smallsmile:

JaronK
2010-08-01, 05:31 AM
I am always roleplaying. Rolling the dice just informs the results of my simulated actions.

JaronK

arrowhen
2010-08-01, 08:57 AM
"I attack the monster (roll, roll)" is just as much roleplaying as "forsooth, milady." I'm portraying a character, sometimes through their words and sometimes through their actions. Sometimes it involves dice, sometimes it doesn't, but it's all roleplay.

Pink Ranger
2010-08-01, 09:45 AM
How much role-playing verses Roll-playing do you do? If your DM tried to make you Role-play more how well do you think you'd respond? And last but not least, what do you think you're respond best to if you were forced to role-play more?

When I play D&D, I try to play so that if the DM didn't want to use die rolls at all, he wouldn't have to. As such, I enjoy making characters that have serious personality flaws, are not optimized, and offer different plot hooks that can be taken up in the course of the campaign.

If the DM tried to make me role-play more, I would oblige...as long as he gave me something to work with. You give me a cliched story where the party is pigeonholed into doing what you want, you will get a cliched character. You give me a story I can get sucked into, I will act as best I can.

I know that one way my DMs have tried to get the party to role-play more in the past, has been to offer XP bonuses for what they considered acting in character. I find that personal bonuses end up being an exercise in favoritism, and are too subjective to really be an effective carrot. I think the best way to encourage more role-playing is to have the NPCs and the story actually be affected by the characters' actions. Making the players feel like even the small details matter is really important; don't let them exist in a vacuum independent of everything else in the setting.

Milskidasith
2010-08-01, 10:01 AM
Role playing and "roll playing" (I hate that term because of all that it implies), are not exclusive, at all.

Making a strong character does not mean he can't have strong motivations or act well. They could have a troubled past (very cliche term, I know), a reason to fight something, plot hooks, a strong backstory, etc.

Making a weak character, or a character with massive personality flaws/flaws that affect combat very negatively, likewise, does not make the character better roleplayed by default. Yes, your character can have a crippling fear of the color yellow, severe self confidence issues, and an inability to do anything in combat, but that doesn't make them an endearing character. Roleplayed badly or even averagely, all that does is make your character an annoying load on the party.

Serpentine
2010-08-01, 10:10 AM
How much role-playing verses Roll-playing do you do?More Role than Roll. Roll is determined by Role.

If your DM tried to make you Role-play more how well do you think you'd respond?Craft a character that will be both fun and easy to roleplay.

And last but not least, what do you think you're respond best to if you were forced to role-play more?Um... Do you mean "what can the DM do to encourage you to roleplay more?"? If so, offer situations and characters with which I can have my character interact in entertaining and/or meaningful ways.
I dislike the state of mind that has so many "makes" and "forces" in those questions.

Shinizak
2010-08-01, 10:11 AM
I hope this has been helpful. May I ask what brought about the question?

I am making a home brew system that combines World of Darkness, L5R, call of cthulhu, and the faintest trace of D&D 3.5. However when I asked my friend what he wanted out of a game, he said he simply wanted a role-playing mechanic that encouraged the players to role-play more rather then just grinding out some dice. I found the idea intriguing, so I decided to ask you guys to see (A) whether the average player would be accepting of being told to RP more, and (B) what would encourage you to do so. Once I'm confident that I see a trend I'll work to incorporate it into the system.

Serpentine
2010-08-01, 10:13 AM
Uh... In that case, I think you're looking at it the wrong way :smallconfused: What you want is to make a system that welcomes, encourages and enables as much roleplaying as a player wants, not one that forces them to adhere to a particular level. Of the (two <.<) systems I've played in, World of Darkness is probably the best for this.
To put it another way, you want to build a system that will attract roleplayers, not one that will lure in rollplayers and then force them to become roleplayers. If you do it right, in other words, this will all be a moot point.

Milskidasith
2010-08-01, 10:37 AM
I am making a home brew system that combines World of Darkness, L5R, call of cthulhu, and the faintest trace of D&D 3.5. However when I asked my friend what he wanted out of a game, he said he simply wanted a role-playing mechanic that encouraged the players to role-play more rather then just grinding out some dice. I found the idea intriguing, so I decided to ask you guys to see (A) whether the average player would be accepting of being told to RP more, and (B) what would encourage you to do so. Once I'm confident that I see a trend I'll work to incorporate it into the system.

There is no distinction between the two, and they do not hinder each other. That is my position. I do not see why people think that they are two distinct entities where more power means you are a worse roleplayer and crippling mechanical flaws make your character well written, or where optimizing means your character can't possibly have a coherent theme while picking feats for flavor/randomly means your character is better at representing what he wants to be.

Furthermore, I don't understand why people say things like "roleplay drives 'rollplay.'" If you mean that the motivation behind the characters occurs before and gives a reason for why they take their actions, that's nothing new; typically events do have the cause come first and the effect later. If you say mean "characters are built for roleplaying reasons first, and the mechanics are fitted on" that depends on the person; plenty of people build the mechanics first and write a backstory to fit it, and neither are necessarily of lower quality, in mechanics or story, than the other.

Shinizak
2010-08-01, 10:42 AM
Uh... In that case, I think you're looking at it the wrong way :smallconfused: What you want is to make a system that welcomes, encourages and enables as much roleplaying as a player wants, not one that forces them to adhere to a particular level. Of the (two <.<) systems I've played in, World of Darkness is probably the best for this.
To put it another way, you want to build a system that will attract roleplayers, not one that will lure in rollplayers and then force them to become roleplayers. If you do it right, in other words, this will all be a moot point.

I know, I was leaning more towards a reward system for roll playing like exalted with it's stunt bonuses rather then flat out forcing those who are naturally uncreative to exercise something they just don't have. but I wanted to make sure anyway.

Earthwalker
2010-08-01, 10:47 AM
He had an 8 Charisma, no training in Diplomacy, and still managed to get through two diplomatic challenges because I roleplayed him through them; and honestly one of those was probably the most fun encounter of the game and the one where I had the most feeling I would die.

I never get this. If you have 8 cha and no social skills then it is not playing the character "role" well to win diplomatic problems. You are not roleplaying by convincing the other group to let you live, as you are not playing the role you have.

It guess worse if players are using a point buy system. I may as well take my cha down to 8 and then not bother buying social skills I will just "roleplay" it. If you are "roleplaying" that char then do it properly. Make him shy so he doesn't speak up, or make him a truly obnoxious character. I mean he has gone thru all his life and not learned anything of the simple niceties of life, like you know some diplomacy.

To answer the questions.

generally we do alot of roleplay, most times players try to limit there abilities to they characters skills.

If the GM wanted more Role play he would get it, I never object to just talking out situations, and staying in character.

If you are wanting to force some role play I would first start it with none serious life threatening situations.

Serpentine
2010-08-01, 10:54 AM
That depends on what that 8 Charisma means to him. Is it poor looks, low self-esteem, bad social skills, social anxiety, grumpiness, an offputting tic or feature, lack of sense of one's place in the world, lack of self-worth, inability to emphasise with others, or a mixture or what?
If this specific case was largely about low self-esteem and plain appearance, then the successful Diplomacies might represent the character's ability to put aside these concerns and step up to the occasion, using his intellect to reason his way to a favourable outcome. It might even result in character development, the roleplaying of development of a sense of self worth, perhaps represented mechanically by some investment in Charisma.

oxybe
2010-08-01, 10:54 AM
1) how much?

depends on the game, group & session. some games are just very crunch heavy by default. some groups are more "beer and pretzels". some sessions are winged and RPed more then anything else.

i've yet to see any constant in my experience other then "it depends who you're playing with"

2)DM makes me RP?

you can't really "make" someone RP more then you can force an introvert into an extravert in a matter of seconds. it all depends on how the GM presents his case and how demanding he's being. if it's just one or two little things that irritate him or a suggestions or two, then no biggie.

3)forced to RP?

if leaving the game is for some strange reason not an option, then i simply get annoying and irritating.

i will play an affably evil character who monologues while other characters (PCs & NPCs alike) are still around but "offscreen"... and of course they can hear me. my plots would probably revolve around the fact that the PC knows that the D&D universe works in really, really weird ways.

the more you force something on me, the worse it gets for you. if i'm not comfortable with his demands, then i leave.

arrowhen
2010-08-01, 10:56 AM
What do you (and/or your friend) mean by "role-playing mechanic"?

Milskidasith
2010-08-01, 10:59 AM
That depends on what that 8 Charisma means to him. Is it poor looks, low self-esteem, bad social skills, social anxiety, grumpiness, an offputting tic or feature, lack of sense of one's place in the world, lack of self-worth, inability to emphasise with others, or a mixture or what?
If this specific case was largely about low self-esteem and plain appearance, then the successful Diplomacies might represent the character's ability to put aside these concerns and step up to the occasion, using his intellect to reason his way to a favourable outcome. It might even result in character development, the roleplaying of development of a sense of self worth, perhaps represented mechanically by some investment in Charisma.

The case was less "he made a good diplomacy roll" and more "The guy didn't even bother rolling, he just used his real personality to talk his way out of things."

Furthermore, and this is a problem with D&D, investing into side ventures is incredibly hard and practically worthless; it takes a significant fraction of a characters level ups to enhance his charisma for essentially no benefit, especially since the number doesn't even matter when you can just talk through things. Not that diplomacy is a good system, mind you, but making the biggest dump stat in the game useless even for the skills it is used for and penalizing people who want to play diplomatic characters for not being well-spoken is not really what I would consider good role-playing. It might be clever, sure, and it's certainly good (RL) diplomacy if it works, but it's not actually playing your role.

Ozymandias9
2010-08-01, 11:22 AM
Furthermore, I don't understand why people say things like "roleplay drives 'rollplay.'"

Generally, for me that means treating story goals without any definitive mechanical benefits as valid goals. To use an example above, if I had a character who I would expect wants to be knighted, I would have them pay the 1000 g if it were required.

Now, as a GM, I would far prefer finding a way to work that a bit more elegantly-- perhaps there is a requirement that knights be landed in the realm of the monarch. The 1000g is thus used to buy the land and establish the keep (actually, the keep would probably cost a bit more in most settings). The Knight could then reasonably expect to make some gold back from having hirelings work the land in a serfdom arrangement.

Shinizak
2010-08-01, 11:28 AM
What do you (and/or your friend) mean by "role-playing mechanic"?

L5R has the mechanics of Glory, Honor, and status. For Honor, depending on how how much you respect your superiors, your status, and your people can all affects a good portion of your skills. Glory is how brave you were in battle, especially in mass battles, and status can be achieved if the lord is impressed and gives your character land/power/etc.

Werewolf the apocalypse has a similar system, but instead of status you get wisdom which you get based on how much wisdom you show in your adventures. Someone who kills an important NPC just because you want to kill something that day isn't going to have a lot of wisdom. And the amount of glory/wisdom honor determines what kind of power you can learn.

Exalted has a stunt bonus which grants bonus dice based on how well/extensive you describe you action.

Milskidasith
2010-08-01, 11:45 AM
Generally, for me that means treating story goals without any definitive mechanical benefits as valid goals. To use an example above, if I had a character who I would expect wants to be knighted, I would have them pay the 1000 g if it were required.

Now, as a GM, I would far prefer finding a way to work that a bit more elegantly-- perhaps there is a requirement that knights be landed in the realm of the monarch. The 1000g is thus used to buy the land and establish the keep (actually, the keep would probably cost a bit more in most settings). The Knight could then reasonably expect to make some gold back from having hirelings work the land in a serfdom arrangement.

So... cause and effect? Characters doing things because they have a reason to? As I said, that's less "roleplay versus 'rollplay'" and more "How everything in every system, real life, every piece of fiction, etc." works. Saying "roleplay drives rollplay" is either a comment about character building which is untrue, or a statement so obvious that it has no real meaning.

Earthwalker
2010-08-01, 11:51 AM
That depends on what that 8 Charisma means to him. Is it poor looks, low self-esteem, bad social skills, social anxiety, grumpiness, an offputting tic or feature, lack of sense of one's place in the world, lack of self-worth, inability to emphasise with others, or a mixture or what?
If this specific case was largely about low self-esteem and plain appearance, then the successful Diplomacies might represent the character's ability to put aside these concerns and step up to the occasion, using his intellect to reason his way to a favourable outcome. It might even result in character development, the roleplaying of development of a sense of self worth, perhaps represented mechanically by some investment in Charisma.

I do see what you are saying. If the player was viewing the low cha as low self esteem, it was lucky that he managed to over come it twice, both times when it really mattered.
I think alot of players assign a low score in charisma and then go on and play the character as they normally would. If you aren't playing a class that needs cha it is never thought about.
I have bad Shadowrun memories of cha 1 characters with no social skills still trying to be the face of the group so I am probably over sensitive about this stuff.

Ozymandias9
2010-08-01, 11:40 PM
So... cause and effect? Characters doing things because they have a reason to? As I said, that's less "roleplay versus 'rollplay'" and more "How everything in every system, real life, every piece of fiction, etc." works. Saying "roleplay drives rollplay" is either a comment about character building which is untrue, or a statement so obvious that it has no real meaning.

Well, it can certainly have an effect on character building: if you have a character in mind, the nature of the character may (specific to certain characters) dictate some measure of class, skill, feat, or wealth investment that has no heavy mechanical value.

But in the more general case, I don't think it "has no real meaning." Someone said earlier in this very thread that they would be unwilling to give up 1000g to be knighted if it carried only story benefits. Would you?

Milskidasith
2010-08-02, 12:19 AM
Well, it can certainly have an effect on character building: if you have a character in mind, the nature of the character may (specific to certain characters) dictate some measure of class, skill, feat, or wealth investment that has no heavy mechanical value.

As I have said, it is unwise to assume that everybody builds with a concept first, and then mechanics, or builds entirely on mechanics, then slaps on a story. You could easily have varying degrees, such as starting with a backstory, or starting with an archetype, then making the mechanics, then making the backstory, or starting with a character mechanically complete and refluffing with the backstory, or any combination. Yes, you can take feats that are irrelevant for fluff reasons, but that does not make the character who doesn't burn fluff feats any worse, nor does it make any sense when you build mechanics first, or archetype then mechanics, or even in some cases where you build "general backstory, then mechanics, then finishing touches."


But in the more general case, I don't thing it "has no real meaning." Someone said earlier in this very thread that they would be unwilling to give up 1000g to be knighted if it carried only story benefits. Would you?

That's irrelevant to what I am saying. What I was saying is that defining "roleplaying driven" as "Characters/players doing things because they have reason to" is such an obvious statement it's meaningless. I'm not saying it's not true, much like I'm not saying that bringing up the fact the sky is blue in the middle of a conversation isn't true. It just doesn't add anything to the conversation because nobody was in disagreement about it.

Strawberries
2010-08-02, 12:31 AM
But in the more general case, I don't thing it "has no real meaning." Someone said earlier in this very thread that they would be unwilling to give up 1000g to be knighted if it carried only story benefits. Would you?

No, I wouldn't. I've done similar things before. For instance, my rogue (level 3, and my third character ever, so it would be hard to find something less optimized) gave 500 golds, a part of the loot found after completing an assignment, to a friend of hers. The friend was in my backstory, had been established to be a bit of a sister for my character, and was in a tight spot at the moment, so it made sense.

But I still can't see the difference. I would have done the same even if my character was the pinnacle of optimizing and power. (which is what I've come to understand "rollplay" means).
What I'm saying is that I agree with Milskidasith: it's less a case of role vs rollplay and more a case of character doing things because they have a reason to. And I think that depends on how the individual player approaches gaming, more than the mechanics.

Ozymandias9
2010-08-02, 12:42 AM
As I have said, it is unwise to assume that everybody builds with a concept first, and then mechanics, or builds entirely on mechanics, then slaps on a story. You could easily have varying degrees, such as starting with a backstory, or starting with an archetype, then making the mechanics, then making the backstory, or starting with a character mechanically complete and refluffing with the backstory, or any combination. Yes, you can take feats that are irrelevant for fluff reasons, but that does not make the character who doesn't burn fluff feats any worse, nor does it make any sense when you build mechanics first, or archetype then mechanics, or even in some cases where you build "general backstory, then mechanics, then finishing touches."

I'm not assuming that everyone does it. I'm merely saying that that is a conceivable situation where, during character creation, decisions based on Roleplay may have a discernibly different outcome than those based on mechanical play.


That's irrelevant to what I am saying. What I was saying is that defining "roleplaying driven" as "Characters/players doing things because they have reason to" is such an obvious statement it's meaningless. I'm not saying it's not true, much like I'm not saying that bringing up the fact the sky is blue in the middle of a conversation isn't true. It just doesn't add anything to the conversation because nobody was in disagreement about it.

Obviously someone is in disagreement with it: there was someone in this thread that said they would be unwilling to sacrifice 1000g for something that the character would have reason to do (I'm making an assumption here that the character in question wanted to be a knight, since it probably wouldn't come up otherwise). They were unwilling to make that mechanical sacrifice, despite the fact that (presumably) the character would be.

Would it help if I were to rephrase the original question? To my understanding, it means "Are you willing to sacrifice mechanical utility for a purely story-related gain?" A better question would be, in my opinion, "How much mechanical utility are you willing to sacrifice for a purely story-related gain?"

Felyndiira
2010-08-02, 12:43 AM
How much role-playing verses Roll-playing do you do?
A lot of the former and a lot less of the latter. I tend to actually get bored with rolling dice and book-keeping, so I love interactions and chances for character expression considerably more than combat and problem-solving. It's not everyday that I get to debate drow philosophy and summarize love as a equal set of observations, after all.


If your DM tried to make you Role-play more how well do you think you'd respond?
Can I say YES loudly enough XD?


And last but not least, what do you think you're respond best to if you were forced to role-play more?
I came from a free-form role-playing board, where we'd often write paragraphs per post. Among my characters there are powerless children, innocents caught in the middle of a war, a boy who really wants to be a superhero, a crime lord that deals with human trafficking and is a closet pedo, a Communist revolutionary that took over the world with charisma and trickery, a scientist, a woobie, a prostitute that wanted to turn back and redo her actions, a blind child who is optimistic about life, and a talented artist who was fond of expressive modern art - all of whom are immensely fun to play. Role-playing is inherently more fun to me than dice could ever be.

If the DM and the rest of my party members are fine with a character that doesn't contribute well in combat, I'm actually willing to play Tier 6/a fallen paladin right off the get go. Stormwind fallacy aside, numbers only mean anything to me when I know combat will be a strong part of a campaign, and I'm willing to play anything that fits my mood if not contributing well in combat = a-okay for my teammates.

(I've actually always wanted to play a fallen paladin, actually =p).

*

Now that I've answered the obligatory questions, let me put my .02 cents into the issue. D&D, unlike free-form roleplaying, is a heavily constricted medium with a "DM" that is given the power to moderate everything. Now, I've mentioned that I would love to play a fallen paladin - a decidedly unoptimized character at tier 6 - in a future campaign, although I have yet to ever make such a character; this is mostly because I have never met a DM thus far that heavily emphasized roleplaying and set combat at a low enough priority that I could play such a character without fear of getting killed off, or otherwise getting penalized for my choices.

Roll-playing is vital to most D&D games - and many other systems as well - that you encounter. Let's, hypothetically, assume that I decide to play that fallen paladin. Let's also assume that the DM puts some emphasis on combat in the game, and tries to provide challenging encounters to the party. The fact that he is absolutely horrid at contributing to combat pretty much means that he does not help out the party, which in turn may make the other members of the party - assuming that they treat combat as an important part of the rp - frustrated that they have to share their wealth with this useless party member. My DM may also be frustrated that he has to tailor situations specifically so that my character can contribute. Thus, playing the fallen paladin, in this case, takes away from the enjoyment of a campaign overall.

I tend not to optimize in D&D. I rarely dump charisma unless if I really want to play an uncharismatic character (which reflects on my roleplaying as well), and I tend to rarely dump any of the three mental stats because I feel compelled to actually role-play to my choices. I actually dumped constitution more than once befire. Nonetheless, I still am compelled to play around with weaknesses and strengths because even if a -3 to a poor will save (as a flaw) fits my character, I always end up thinking, "hey wait, this means that the DM will start tossing more illusions and enchants around. This is bad; I can't allow my self to have a will save of -2. Let's refluff my character to match this." Is this a purely a numbers decision? Yes. Can I avoid it? Well, it's never fun role-playing a character that gets charmed half the time and phantasmal killer'd the other half, isn't it =p?

I've yet to meet a group that's eager to accept a knowingly under-performing character (for a quick reference, take a look at some of the complaints about "stupid players" in this forum) for the sake of interactions. While it's very much acceptable to hinder the party in a story-driven free-form, D&D is still a roll-playing game at heart, and depending on your party and DM, it may simply be unacceptable to purposely go below a certain level of optimization for the sake of a fun character.

Having said that, I'm now reading World of Darkness and really loving the system. It absolutely encourages players to have weaknesses and puts numbers behind everything rather than just a focus in physical combat, and every character is encourages - and will have - weaknesses and strengths in broad areas. Finally, I don't have to debate with myself every time I wanted to dump Con (stamina) =p.

sciencepanda
2010-08-02, 01:45 AM
I'm not assuming that everyone does it. I'm merely saying that that is a conceivable situation where, during character creation, decisions based on Roleplay may have a discernibly different outcome than those based on mechanical play.

I disagree with this. The way I've always done it is, that you roll to determine how successful your action was, and then roleplay it out to show how it came about that you were successful or unsuccessful.

Say, you fail a search check. Your character could hastily look around the room, growing increasingly frustrated at having not having found anything. Or you get a critical hit him battle. You are upset at your opponent having injured your compatriots, so you take special care to swing your sword right at the monster's noggin. Just to give a few examples.

Ozymandias9
2010-08-02, 02:03 AM
I disagree with this. The way I've always done it is, that you roll to determine how successful your action was, and then roleplay it out to show how it came about that you were successful or unsuccessful.

Say, you fail a search check. Your character could hastily look around the room, growing increasingly frustrated at having not having found anything. Or you get a critical hit him battle. You are upset at your opponent having injured your compatriots, so you take special care to swing your sword right at the monster's noggin. Just to give a few examples.

The text you were quoting was dealing with character creation, not check arbitration. That's (check arbitration) a pretty clear case where the checks determine what you can roleplay.

arrowhen
2010-08-02, 02:12 AM
I came from a free-form role-playing board, where we'd often write paragraphs per post. Among my characters there are powerless children, innocents caught in the middle of a war, a boy who really wants to be a superhero, a crime lord that deals with human trafficking and is a closet pedo, a Communist revolutionary that took over the world with charisma and trickery, a scientist, a woobie, a prostitute that wanted to turn back and redo her actions, a blind child who is optimistic about life, and a talented artist who was fond of expressive modern art - all of whom are immensely fun to play. Role-playing is inherently more fun to me than dice could ever be.

May I ask where this wonderful free-form role-playing board is found, and whether it's still around? Because I love text-based free-form roleplaying but whenever I look for a place to do it, all I ever manage to find is a bunch of 15 year olds writing crappy Buffy/Harry Potter/Twilight/anime/some-crap-I've-never-even-heard-of fanfic.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-02, 05:35 AM
How much role-playing verses Roll-playing do you do? If your DM tried to make you Role-play more how well do you think you'd respond? And last but not least, what do you think you're respond best to if you were forced to role-play more?

Depends what I feel like, and on the game. If Im not terribly engaged, say, if people are being quite silly, I rarely roleplay much. I'll just joke and game. But if it's a good game, I'll get into it and roleplay quite a bit.

I respond poorly to force. Generally with fire.

I dunno. Everything burns. I'd guess all methods of forcing me to do something I don't want to are equally well, given that they all end with me dancing a merry jig on the ashes of everyone else, singing "she put the lime in the coconut..."

Tyndmyr
2010-08-02, 05:37 AM
May I ask where this wonderful free-form role-playing board is found, and whether it's still around? Because I love text-based free-form roleplaying but whenever I look for a place to do it, all I ever manage to find is a bunch of 15 year olds writing crappy Buffy/Harry Potter/Twilight/anime/some-crap-I've-never-even-heard-of fanfic.

Oh, let's not forget the gratuitous wish-fullfillment threads, where a bunch of 15 yr olds describe how their angsty unloved child of three dieties, spawn, a vampire, and a demon lord kills everyone else.

There are a lot of those.

faceroll
2010-08-02, 05:56 AM
plenty of people build the mechanics first and write a backstory to fit it.

I've been thinking about this a lot, and mechanics-then-backstory is something I do quite frequently. What is mechanically best often doesn't make much sense, or requires rather strange explanations. I wonder how much of what I think of as D&D is due to fluff generation to justify mechanical advantages. The Tippyverse is the biggest example of this, I think.


I disagree with this. The way I've always done it is, that you roll to determine how successful your action was, and then roleplay it out to show how it came about that you were successful or unsuccessful.

Say, you fail a search check. Your character could hastily look around the room, growing increasingly frustrated at having not having found anything. Or you get a critical hit him battle. You are upset at your opponent having injured your compatriots, so you take special care to swing your sword right at the monster's noggin. Just to give a few examples.

That's not what Ozymandias was saying. He was talking about character creation. For instance, if I want a mechanically strong cleric, I am going to go faithless cloistered cleric with death and planning as my domains. While I could certainly justify those domains, I can only justify them in a handful of ways. If I wanted to play a cleric of Heironeous, I would feel a rather marked decrease in power, given that I would have 2 fewer feats on a rather feat starved build.

Project_Mayhem
2010-08-02, 08:12 AM
I've never really understood this idea of roleplay as something you drop in every now and again, or something you do outside of fights.

I make a character. They generally have mechanics, that define what they can do, and they have personalities and back stories that define who they are. The second part drives everything. If you are 'roleplaying' a character then, really, everything they do should be defined by their personality, wants, and needs. That they pay or refuse to pay 1000g to become a knight. That they take risks in combat. That they refuse to dress in anything less than noble finery. That they always fight with their fathers shield. That they never admit they make mistakes (ad. infinitum)

Milskidasith
2010-08-02, 09:15 AM
I'm not assuming that everyone does it. I'm merely saying that that is a conceivable situation where, during character creation, decisions based on Roleplay may have a discernibly different outcome than those based on mechanical play.

The way you were posting implied that everybody did make a backstory first if they were on the "roleplay" side of the nonexistent distinction between the two.




Obviously someone is in disagreement with it: there was someone in this thread that said they would be unwilling to sacrifice 1000g for something that the character would have reason to do (I'm making an assumption here that the character in question wanted to be a knight, since it probably wouldn't come up otherwise). They were unwilling to make that mechanical sacrifice, despite the fact that (presumably) the character would be.

Would it help if I were to rephrase the original question? To my understanding, it means "Are you willing to sacrifice mechanical utility for a purely story-related gain?" A better question would be, in my opinion, "How much mechanical utility are you willing to sacrifice for a purely story-related gain?"

Here's the answer again: It is irrelevant. You are still just asking "Would I be willing to do something because my character has reason to." You are trying to trap me in an "Oh, you're a roleplayer!" or "Oh, you're a munchkin rollplayer!" but honestly, this question does not matter. People and characters do things because they have reason to. The most specific answer I can say is that I would be very annoyed if I was being forced to use my gold for things that weren't really relevant (which is pretty much what anybody would say), but again, the question is meaningless and seems to serve purely to exist to set up a false dillema so you can force me to "choose" between the sides.


[QUOTE=faceroll;9057350]I've been thinking about this a lot, and mechanics-then-backstory is something I do quite frequently. What is mechanically best often doesn't make much sense, or requires rather strange explanations. I wonder how much of what I think of as D&D is due to fluff generation to justify mechanical advantages. The Tippyverse is the biggest example of this, I think.


Refluffing is easy. Especially if you're multiclassing melee classes, there is no problem with refluffing so your "barbarian1/warbladeX/PrCX/Fighter1/WarbladeX" is just "A warrior" instead of saying how he was from the wilid, then went to a school of fighting, then went to a college of fighting, then went to a different school, then went back to the first school.

Project_Mayhem
2010-08-02, 09:19 AM
Indeed, my response to the question would be it depends on the circumstance and the character I'm playing. Always doing so would be as much poor roleplaying as always refusing to.

Earthwalker
2010-08-02, 09:22 AM
Now that I've answered the obligatory questions, let me put my .02 cents into the issue. D&D, unlike free-form roleplaying, is a heavily constricted medium with a "DM" that is given the power to moderate everything. Now, I've mentioned that I would love to play a fallen paladin - a decidedly unoptimized character at tier 6 - in a future campaign, although I have yet to ever make such a character; this is mostly because I have never met a DM thus far that heavily emphasized roleplaying and set combat at a low enough priority that I could play such a character without fear of getting killed off, or otherwise getting penalized for my choices.


Of course this is problem if only one player does this. If you have a group that is willing to make characters that are alot less optimized then it should not be an issue.

Milskidasith
2010-08-02, 09:24 AM
Of course this is problem if only one player does this. If you have a group that is willing to make characters that are alot less optimized then it should not be an issue.

Or you could just refluff... play a standard paladin, a paladin of tyranny/slaughter/more neutral versions of that, or a blackguard (make the entry requirements make sense, obviously), and just say that you are fallen.

Ozymandias9
2010-08-02, 01:28 PM
Here's the answer again: It is irrelevant. You are still just asking "Would I be willing to do something because my character has reason to."
Basically, yes-- but with the addition of "at some loss of mechanical power". How is that irrelevant? It's doesn't seem to have one answer that is overwhelmingly presumed over another.

And I, personally, find the question far from meaningless. As point of fact, this is similar to something I ask my players for certain types of games-- specifically because I need to know how they will respond to certain expenditures so that I can exercise some control over how fast they advance towards story goals.

If you were, for example, dealing with :haley:, you would probably want to make sure that you aimed low enough that the player wouldn't simply disregard the idea of buying her father's freedom as too laughably expensive, but high enough that it doesn't bring them into direct conflict with Lord Tyrinar (sp?) at a point in time vastly before he's level appropriate.


You are trying to trap me in an "Oh, you're a roleplayer!" or "Oh, you're a munchkin rollplayer!" but honestly, this question does not matter.

No, I'm not. The reason I said that a "how much" formulation would be better is because I presume that many, if not most, players indulge in both.


People and characters do things because they have reason to. [...]the question is meaningless and seems to serve purely to exist to set up a false dillema so you can force me to "choose" between the sides.

I'm not asking you to choose. I'm asking what you do choose when it comes up. I would actually presume that there will be not one solitary person here that would answer either "everything" or "nothing" or even anything close. No one plays Pun-Pun (well, no one I want to talk to) and the opposite extreme-- free-form role-playing-- isn't a huge force (on this forum or anywhere).

In the example I refined for being knighted (where there was a requirement that they be landed to a certain degree in the monarch's realm), how much would you be willing to pay if you felt that being knighted should be one of your character's goals? Would you pay 1% of your WBL? 10%? 20%? At what point would you give up on the goal rather than seeking to, say, use it as a segue to incorporating a Stronghold. At what point, as Haley, would you give up and start plotting revenge against Lord Tyrinnar(again, sp?) rather than trying to fulfill the ransom?

Even if you don't have an answer off the top of your head, there probably is one. And the DM of a campaign where such things are expected to come up, should have some interest in them.

JaronK
2010-08-02, 01:32 PM
Here's the obvious question: what's this Knight doing? Is he battling to save the world against impossible odds all the time (as PCs are wont to do)? If so, then honor demands he not spend a bunch of money just for a title. He needs that money for gear to save the world. A title does not matter if the land will be destroyed, after all.

Remember, if your PCs are fighting to save the world then the best possible action, the one that makes the most sense in character, is to equip themselves as best as they can and maximize their abilities. Time to mess around comes after the world is saved and the threats are gone. Then you can spend a bunch of wealth building your own castle and throwing great feasts. If you're making great mechanical sacrifices that will reduce your ability to save the world, thus jeopardizing yourself, your party, your loved ones, and everybody else out there, then you're a fool. Unless you're roleplaying a fool, there's a problem.

JaronK

WarKitty
2010-08-02, 01:41 PM
Would it help if I were to rephrase the original question? To my understanding, it means "Are you willing to sacrifice mechanical utility for a purely story-related gain?" A better question would be, in my opinion, "How much mechanical utility are you willing to sacrifice for a purely story-related gain?"

It depends on how optimized the game is.

However, I tend to feel that a good adventurer character is highly interested in mechanical utility. In most games my character has chosen an adventuring life, presumably for a reason. If that reason isn't straight out power, it's usually for a reason that requires power (I can't save the world/protect nature/master the arcane disciplines if I'm constantly passing up the chance to gain power can I?).

Ozymandias9
2010-08-02, 02:07 PM
However, I tend to feel that a good adventurer character is highly interested in mechanical utility. In most games my character has chosen an adventuring life, presumably for a reason. If that reason isn't straight out power, it's usually for a reason that requires power (I can't save the world/protect nature/master the arcane disciplines if I'm constantly passing up the chance to gain power can I?).

Indeed. However, if your goal is to "protect nature," and you have the option of, say, purchasing an area of land from a rather destructive noble, then, well... druid's groves tend to be fairly well protected natural spaces.

Or, if the goal is to build a new kingdom for your scattered people, how much are you willing to sacrifice to build, say, the equivalent of the Parthenon or the Senate Halls in your new homeland? How much experience are you willing to burn on the spells to protect those places?

As Jaronk points out, this is an issue that is out of place if the plot is something world shattering. Not all plots are earth-shattering, and some characters are more interested in ruling a kingdom (or the world) than saving it.

Moreover there are certainly other ways to accomplish these things. But money is a valid way.

JaronK
2010-08-02, 02:24 PM
Well, I'm absolutely an optimizer. But I've also absolutely taken time out (and money!) to do such things as build an awesome cart for the party (because my character thought it was cool), build and protect a Wizard's tower because I wanted a place to project power from, and build a giant fortress deep within a mountain so I could have a nice place to relax after a long day's battling (a portal in a portable hole kept it accessable).

Of course, none of these things cost that much.

JaronK

WarKitty
2010-08-02, 02:31 PM
Indeed. However, if your goal is to "protect nature," and you have the option of, say, purchasing an area of land from a rather destructive noble, then, well... druid's groves tend to be fairly well protected natural spaces.

Or, if the goal is to build a new kingdom for your scattered people, how much are you willing to sacrifice to build, say, the equivalent of the Parthenon or the Senate Halls in your new homeland? How much experience are you willing to burn on the spells to protect those places?

As Jaronk points out, this is an issue that is out of place if the plot is something world shattering. Not all plots are earth-shattering, and some characters are more interested in ruling a kingdom (or the world) than saving it.

Moreover there are certainly other ways to accomplish these things. But money is a valid way.

Actually my last druid would just have sent a snake in to poison the noble and schemed to take over his entire estate.

As far as the other schemes: Depends on what the plot was and how important my character thought such places were. My characters tend to inherit my own personal distaste for large monuments. If it were a fortress? I'd absolutely spend a fair bit to protect it.