Roleplayer and/or Artist

[Shadowknight12]

Spawned from another thread:


A roleplayer plays a role. It is never implied that he creates one from scratch. He may do so or play one he's given, with little or heavy modification. An artist is one who enjoys being creative, often creating from scratch. Both roles may overlap. But they don't have to.

I understand that the definition of artist is someone who creates art. However, I choose to use the above definition because I've yet to find a better one for "person who enjoys being creative, often creating from scratch."

Discuss?

[OracleofSilence]

Personally i found your argument here most interesting, particularly in the manner in whis it intereacts in DnD


this middle ground is basically that of the author. He (or she) must create characters, worlds, and plots, and moreover, should enjoy doing so. However, they must also understand, and "play that character". DM's are forced to do similar things, as they create or use a world, and must populate said world.

The dichotomy between artistry and DM-ing is interesting. I have personally found two DM's that illustrate it. The first is a superb role player, but his worlds feel less then developed. There is some spark, an essential lack of enjoyment missing from their creation.

Another i have played under was a superb artist. he had beautiful worlds, filled with fascinating characters that he could not make lifelike for love or money. I have only found one who inhabited the middle ground, but alas, i could not get him to do DnD. The structure of it appalled him

does this sound reasonable?

[Shadowknight12]

Well, golly gee, I've posted this in the wrong board. Alas, such is the fate of those who are always in a hurry. Perhaps a kindly do-modder will help me out.


Personally i found your argument here most interesting, particularly in the manner in whis it intereacts in DnD

does this sound reasonable?

It actually does. I think that's an excellent example of both extremes. A roleplayer is not, by necessity, a person who enjoys creation. He merely (ostensibly!) enjoys interpretation. There's a certain element of planning in creation. It takes vision and patience to enjoy the process of creation something in an RPG, whether that is a setting or a character. Every single decision you make, you have to compare and contrast it with every decision you've made thus far, and with the possible consequences and scenarios of the future.

An artist must straddle the past and the future at once, while a roleplayer is about the here and the now. The decisions he makes have to be influenced by the past (to stay consistent) and the future (if he's a character who thinks about such things), but they don't have to. There's a lot more freedom in roleplaying than there is in creating, especially for chaotic or carefree types. There's also a certain appeal in interpreting a role, to make decisions and choose what would be the best way to bring up the character and make him or her truly shine. However, roleplaying is temporary and fleeting. An artist creates something that endures for a great deal of time. A roleplayer's creations, those moments he brings forth spontaneously, they're gone the second they're over. Unless he's being recorded, all his creativity is poured onto something that will last mere moments.

Some people like to do both, of course, but the overlap is not mandatory.

I hope you can find a middle ground for D&D! Unfortunately, most middle ground is not "good at both" but "mediocre at both."

[OracleofSilence]

yep, i am currently struggling with that now.

however, i find your usage of interpretation interesting. Interpretation could theoretically be defined as a creative act in as of itself. How then, does one distinguish say, a "Loony" player from a slap stick comedian or comic writter, and a power gamer from a pop artist? both try to use their medium to the fullest and tehy are clearly different. How?

[Shadowknight12]

yep, i am currently struggling with that now.

however, i find your usage of interpretation interesting. Interpretation could theoretically be defined as a creative act in as of itself. How then, does one distinguish say, a "Loony" player from a slap stick comedian or comic writter, and a power gamer from a pop artist? both try to use their medium to the fullest and tehy are clearly different. How?

The comedian and the pop singer ARE roleplayers. They play roles, too. The comedian's stage persona is not who he is IRL. He's like an actor that plays a part before an audience. The same goes for the pop singer, who may act sexy and charming on stage but be chronically shy and puritanical IRL. The comic writer is not a roleplayer. He doesn't play a role, unless he writes an idealised self-insertion into his comic, in which case he would be both an artist and a roleplayer at the same time. Granted, the comedian and the pop singer are probably both artists as well, assuming they have created their own role and they continually create their own material, but this might not be the case. Someone else might have created both for them.

The power gamer need not be either. Some people delight in solving mysteries and overcoming challenges, not creating. The power gamer's mystery (and challenge) is "With these tools, how do I achieve X? How do I use the resources at my disposal to win?"

The "loony" player might have plenty of motivations behind his actions, and they may also fall outside either roleplayer or artist. He might want to get attention at the table. He might want to see zany things happen. He might want to delight in forcing others to react to his zaniness, create chaos for chaos's sake and see how the world reacts to it. He might want to test boundaries he can't test IRL. He might just be bored. There are many reasons a "loony" player might act loony.

[NNescio]

What about the Real Man? Is he merely a roleplayer of a different breed?

[Shadowknight12]

What about the Real Man? Is he merely a roleplayer of a different breed?

Who in the n+1 hells is that?

[Frozen_Feet]

The dichtomy you make is interesting, but I think it'd better be termed as Author Vs. Actor.

Author creates material. Actor interpretes it. Now, obviously, whether a player or GM (in games where there even is such distinction), elements from both are featured. Player authors and then acts his character - a GM authors the setting and the acts the supporting cast.

I suppose both roles can be made into an art, but I figure it's possible for work of an unskilled roleplayer to have little to no artistic merit.

[The-Mage-King]

Who in the n+1 hells is that?

One of the four player archetypes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlayerArchetypes). The guy who says "I charge the dragon".

The Real Roleplayer says "I sneak up to the dragon".

The Loony says "I pie the dragon".

The Munchkin says "I hit the dragon 5 times with my +15 sword of killing everything. What's the loot?"

[averagejoe]

Well, golly gee, I've posted this in the wrong board. Alas, such is the fate of those who are always in a hurry. Perhaps a kindly do-modder will help me out.

Sure thing.

I dunno, the more I hear of the meta-discussion, "What is art," the more irrelevant it seems. (That's in general, not as it applies to RPGing.) Where "art," should be a functional descriptor, it's become little more than a tool for advertising, and the more people try to elevate the concept of, "art," and, "The artist," the more this is true.

Take this discussion, for example. It seems to me that it's inarguable to say that RPing has certain artistic elements. Take the creation of a character. This is very similar to what writers, actors, and even painters do, which are all art forms. Yet it seems that there are so many artificial constraints on the concept of, "Art," that seem to serve no other purpose than to exclude things like this, and to what end? What is so important and high-minded about the concept of, "Art," that the definitions have to contort themselves specifically to exclude certain things?

For example:


However, roleplaying is temporary and fleeting. An artist creates something that endures for a great deal of time. A roleplayer's creations, those moments he brings forth spontaneously, they're gone the second they're over. Unless he's being recorded, all his creativity is poured onto something that will last mere moments.

Some artists would like to have a word with you. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_mandala) And there are probably many other couterexamples.

[erikun]

Some artists would like to have a word with you. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_mandala) And there are probably many other couterexamples.
Agreed. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKo7oy2p44U)


Not much to add to the conversation, as it looks like everyone is agreeing from where I'm sitting. Some people create a personality. Some people act out (or interpret) a personality. Some people don't like to create but still like to act - our "Real Men" who take action but poorly define their character's motivations. Some people like to create but don't like to act - the ones who write multiple pages of backstory, but don't seem to want to interact at the table.

And there are people who do both. And people who do neither.

[Shadowknight12]

The dichtomy you make is interesting, but I think it'd better be termed as Author Vs. Actor.

Author creates material. Actor interpretes it. Now, obviously, whether a player or GM (in games where there even is such distinction), elements from both are featured. Player authors and then acts his character - a GM authors the setting and the acts the supporting cast.

I suppose both roles can be made into an art, but I figure it's possible for work of an unskilled roleplayer to have little to no artistic merit.

Yes, perhaps that would be a more accurate distinction, but I don't think all games are roleplayed live. What of PbP? Aren't all authors, by virtue of the medium? Or are we talking about a vaguer definition of Author and Actor, which are not, in fact, constrained by medium?

I am not trying to tie the "artist" definition into art (goodness knows I've had enough of that on the Setting vs. Story thread), simply using it as a shorthand for "person who enjoys the process of creation."


One of the four player archetypes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlayerArchetypes). The guy who says "I charge the dragon".

The Real Roleplayer says "I sneak up to the dragon".

The Loony says "I pie the dragon".

The Munchkin says "I hit the dragon 5 times with my +15 sword of killing everything. What's the loot?"

Bah. And here I was thinking someone would say "YOU HAVE NOT HEARD OF THE REAL MAN? FOR SHAME!" and I'd have the "Sorry, I'm not into Real Men. I like my men straight out of Fantasy" rebuttal ready for them. But alas, it was not meant to be.

Yes, the Real Man would be a roleplayer. He's roleplaying manly actions and playing a macho role, just like (maybe) the Loony.


Sure thing.

I dunno, the more I hear of the meta-discussion, "What is art," the more irrelevant it seems. (That's in general, not as it applies to RPGing.) Where "art," should be a functional descriptor, it's become little more than a tool for advertising, and the more people try to elevate the concept of, "art," and, "The artist," the more this is true.

Take this discussion, for example. It seems to me that it's inarguable to say that RPing has certain artistic elements. Take the creation of a character. This is very similar to what writers, actors, and even painters do, which are all art forms. Yet it seems that there are so many artificial constraints on the concept of, "Art," that seem to serve no other purpose than to exclude things like this, and to what end? What is so important and high-minded about the concept of, "Art," that the definitions have to contort themselves specifically to exclude certain things?

For example:

Some artists would like to have a word with you. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_mandala) And there are probably many other couterexamples.

Firstly, thanks.

Secondly, I knew that using the word artist would get me trouble. But "creator" doesn't fit either! A creator might derive no enjoyment from the act of creation.

I am not arguing against any of that, or the "artistic-ness" of RPing. I am merely borrowing the word "artist" to describe people who enjoy the act of creation. In the context of roleplaying, a person who enjoys the act of creation (that I'm arbitrarily calling "artist") is creating something that will last. A campaign setting, a character sheet/background/etc. A roleplayer, unless we're talking about a PbP medium, won't be creating something that will last, much like an actor on stage.

But really, that's not the main distinction. It doesn't matter how long either of their creations will last. What matters is what gives them enjoyment. A roleplayer derives enjoyment from taking something that exists and having to choose how to react in front of new situations, within the constraints imposed by the role. An "artist" (or "creator" or "author"), prefers to create something new.

[averagejoe]

Secondly, I knew that using the word artist would get me trouble. But "creator" doesn't fit either! A creator might derive no enjoyment from the act of creation.

I am not arguing against any of that, or the "artistic-ness" of RPing. I am merely borrowing the word "artist" to describe people who enjoy the act of creation. In the context of roleplaying, a person who enjoys the act of creation (that I'm arbitrarily calling "artist") is creating something that will last. A campaign setting, a character sheet/background/etc. A roleplayer, unless we're talking about a PbP medium, won't be creating something that will last, much like an actor on stage.

But really, that's not the main distinction. It doesn't matter how long either of their creations will last. What matters is what gives them enjoyment. A roleplayer derives enjoyment from taking something that exists and having to choose how to react in front of new situations, within the constraints imposed by the role. An "artist" (or "creator" or "author"), prefers to create something new.

Ah, I was probably mistaken then. Possibly I was unduly prejudiced by a recent conversation I had, possibly it's the lethargy brought on by the heat. Fair enough, then.

[Frozen_Feet]

However, roleplaying is temporary and fleeting. An artist creates something that endures for a great deal of time.

"Bah! Pop is dead, my style is Super Flat! Catch!"

Song and dance are artforms too, but they're likewise fleeting. Live performance exists in the moment and disappears in the applause of the crowd.

On the other hand, some forms of roleplaying remain. Written roleplays can be archived for further use - the collaborative creation becomes a set story.

As noted, the distinction between Author and Actor is useful when analyzing how roleplaying works, but in play all players do both. Even in written games, there's acting involved, it just might be less prevalent than in live games. In LARPs, acting is obviously more prevalent.

[Shadowknight12]

Ah, I was probably mistaken then. Possibly I was unduly prejudiced by a recent conversation I had, possibly it's the lethargy brought on by the heat. Fair enough, then.

No worries! I wanted to stay out of the "RPGs as art" conversation, but I couldn't think of a better word. Author is nice, though.

Heat. I loathe heat.


"Bah! Pop is dead, my style is Super Flat! Catch!"

http://uselesswarrior.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/demotivator__confusion_by_spirit_catcher.jpg


Song and dance are artforms too, but they're likewise fleeting. Live performance exists in the moment and disappears in the applause of the crowd.

Yes. And I would liken them to role playing.


On the other hand, some forms of roleplaying remain. Written roleplays can be archived for further use - the collaborative creation becomes a set story.

Yes, which is why I added the exception above. And mentioned that they're not the most important distinction. :smalltongue:


As noted, the distinction between Author and Actor is useful when analyzing how roleplaying works, but in play all players do both. Even in written games, there's acting involved, it just might be less prevalent than in live games. In LARPs, acting is obviously more prevalent.

Yes, but if you start looking too closely, you realise that everyone is an Actor and an Author (and many, many more things) in daily life. Let us not go down that path. It leads to madness. And not the fun kind.

I think that the most useful definition is the location of the player's enjoyment in the game. Does the player enjoy creating his character, or does he enjoy seeing how he reacts to the situations he's placed in? Usually they will enjoy both, but rarely in equal measure.

[dsmiles]

does this sound reasonable?
Of course it's reasonable, the structure of DnD is horrible, and promotes neither roleplaying nor artistry. Also, I pie the dragon.

[Frozen_Feet]

*confusion*

Cookie for the first one to get the reference, and why it is relevant! :smalltongue:


Yes, but if you start looking too closely, you realise that everyone is an Actor and an Author (and many, many more things) in daily life. Let us not go down that path. It leads to madness. And not the fun kind.

Not really. There's nothing really mad about or surprising ahead if going down that road, and it's possible to focus on the isolated case of roleplaying games to see how the importance of those two facets changes from system to system and game to game.

[OracleofWuffing]

Of course it's reasonable, the structure of DnD is horrible, and promotes neither roleplaying nor artistry.
Roleplaying, maybe, but there's quite clearly illustrations in the Player's Handbook.

Also, I dragon the pie.

[dsmiles]

Roleplaying, maybe, but there's quite clearly illustrations in the Player's Handbook.
:smalltongue:

[Shadowknight12]

Cookie for the first one to get the reference, and why it is relevant! :smalltongue:

Challenge accepted.

"Remember when Deidara said "Pop is dead. My style is Superflat"? Deidara was actually refering to two art movements. The Pop Art Movement is pro-consumerism and celebrates modern society. The Superflat Art Movement (which is currently only in Japan), on the other hand, opposes Pop art. It focuses on being critical to the modernization, Westernization, and commercialization of Japan since WWII."

More information on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deidara#Deidara).

My Google-Fu. It is strong.


Not really. There's nothing really mad about or surprising ahead if going down that road, and it's possible to focus on the isolated case of roleplaying games to see how the importance of those two facets changes from system to system and game to game.

Oh yes there is. There is psychology talk and subjectivity and philosophy and things that are foggy, muddied and will take us ages to debate in order to agree to disagree. If the discussion wants to go there, I shan't stop it, but I would rather we remained with more colloquial considerations of Author and Actor or Roleplayer and Creator.

[Innis Cabal]

I posted my thoughts on the subject a while back, but I'll repost them here I suppose.


I’ve seen a few threads on what exactly role-play is and if they are in fact doing it correctly. Opinions vary of course on exactly what role-playing is and what it’s meant to accomplish if it’s even meant to accomplish anything at all. While this is meant to be a fairly long winded look at what some call a hobby, others a pass time, I will use some commonly accepted contractions to ease the writing on myself and reading load on everyone else. Role-play (RP from here on) has roots from all over society, stretching a great way back into human antiquity. The term was originally created to refer to a methodology devised by Social Sciences to look at societal roles that existed in a frame of reference outside society itself to further study and understand their interaction and evolution. These methods were derived from Theatre where actors take on the role of another and act it out on stage to convey messages either subtle or direct to an audience through a public venue. Such RP is referred to as acting, but the two are often times one in the same, the roots of such activity can be traced back as far as 2 million BCE. The military has also used the term RP to refer to staged war games and simulations. These simulations (sims) today can be enjoyed through various flight Sims and even the modern video game by non-military personnel in the entertainment market.

Commercial RP has its roots in the Pen and Paper market, but in recent times has swelled into a much larger market including LARPS and as mentioned above Video Games. Most forumites are familiar with this category of RP avenues through various games such as Dungeons and Dragons (D&D) or computer games. Many theories and philosophies exist to hammer a round peg into a square hole into so to speak on why RP as an entertainment avenue exists and how it reflects on the person. I have no such wish to make an over broad philosophy on the evolution or the mindsets of those who choose to RP or even claim that RPing is the intent and sole function of any such titled game. Instead, I seek to look at the varied facets of RP as an outsider looking in to perhaps clarify the mindsets I myself have encountered to aid those new to the scene or simply wishing to waste a little time reading some common tripe.


Is This RP? Am I Doing It Well?

The question that prompted this long winded post, “Is this RP?” is truly opening a bag of worms though I suppose the start is the best place to open such a broad and open ended question. If one were to look at the term RP as simple playing a role, then one could simply reply that we RP every day when we deal with other people or even ourselves. To answer this question in such a manner, while correct and perhaps applicable in various situations, is only the foundation of the heart and soul of the matter here detailed. RP varies by the medium in which one does the deed as well as the people who you interact with. When RPing one must first agree with those engaged what the goal of the exercise is to meet the wants and desires of all involved. While it is fully possible for a group to RP with differing goals with a positive outcome for all, the chances there will be dissent remains high with hurt feelings and lack enjoyment as the best possible outcome to full blown arguments and resentment as the worst. Physical Violence is also a threat but on a miniscule level and dependent on the coping abilities of those present to disappointment. To find a happy medium between all involved it is best to discuss with your fellow players exactly what they wish out of the experience and should disagreements crop up to hammer them out in a peaceful manner until all are satisfied with the direction of the events to be taking place.

As there are many fish in the sea, so too is there a wide variety of RPers. It is never safe to assume that another person is RPing for the same reason you are. RPing is a social event regardless of how you go about it and no matter the number of people involved. It is always wise to keep in mind that others may not agree with your style of RP while others find it hostile and degrading to their own concepts of the activity. As in all social events, when dealing with even a small group of people it is never wise to anger the majority to a point where they feel steps must be taken to ensure you no longer disrupt their lives further. Be respectful of others in an RP community as you would anyone on the street or in your local city, town or even your own home. In so saying, even if others do not feel what you are doing is RP for whatever reason that is no reason to compromise your personal philosophy. If a given community feels you are disrupting them then move on to a community that respects and appreciates your time and effort. Just as your own style is unique to yourself, there will be plenty others who agree with your style and accept you for who you are without you having to change to fit in. In essence you must be yourself regardless of what a larger community demands of you without repentance.



One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish

As mentioned, the variety of RPers is the spice of life in the activity which creates a diverse and often times disagreeable base to operate from whether good or bad. Below is a sampling of the variety of various “archetypes” of the RP community but they are in no way the only “archetypes” in said community, or even a cookie cutter for the “archetype” as written. It is wholly possible to exist in several catagories listed or none at all.

Wish Fulfillment: One of the most common styles of RPing and easily one of the most dividing in a great deal of the community by merit of the extremes in which the style exists. Many Wish Fulfillment RPers seek to leave their common lives behind and take on the persona of a great warrior or other powerful entity for a time and immerse themselves in a world they only wish they were a part of. Opinions vary on this style from acceptance to outright hostility depending on the RP in question. Wish Fulfillment RP can be a healthy activity but can also tread the line of unacceptable in many circles depending on just how big your wish and desire for fulfillment can be. More on this topic below under the I Am the Son of Mayong Mistmoore, Maybe You’ve Heard of Me?

Social Analysis: Another common category is the Social Analyst. These RPers seek to take on a role they themselves do not function within, a mindset they do not share or a general lifestyle they do not apply to in order to understand it better. Social Analysts RP to understand not only themselves but to understand others as well. Social Analysts can often come across as snobbish to various other RPers due to a perceived “Scientific Establishment” of their craft. Others take the Social Analyst as a joke, feeling that RP at its base is purely entertainment can cannot teach or be studied as an academic pastime.

Pure Entertainment: Easily the most common category of RP and perhaps the easiest to sum up. These people RP because they enjoy it with no deeper desire other than doing something fun. The level of investment or lack thereof varies as does the RPer himself.

Boredom: While not common, some RP for the sheer boredom they experience when playing online games or in general life. RPers that play out of Boredom generally fall within the Pure Entertainment categories or the Trolling Categories depending on how they go about the activity.

Trolling: Trolling RP is more common on social media sites and online games due to the anonymity provided by such avenues. These RPers seek to poke fun or outright harass the community they find themselves in for personal reasons or as above simple boredom. While at its roots the Troll RP is born from satire


I Play Gateways: The Opening, Ya…You’ve Probably Never Heard of It

A common criticism in the RP community is snobbery created by various play styles. It is easy for one to view their methodology of RPing as the “Right” way and everyone else as inferior or abrasive. The criticism is sadly well aimed by those on the outside looking in due to various reasons. Such snobbery comes about in several distinct and often times abrasive ways. While the terms below are by no means codified I find they sum up the mentality quite well. They, like above, are not the only pitfalls in the RP community and in no way reflect the opinions of the writer.

“The Hipster”: This person only plays the most obscure of RPG’s (Role Playing Games) and generally only enjoys something if it’s as far off mainstream as possible all the while shoving such into the faces of those he or she feels has bought in to the corporate monolith that’s “killing the genre”. Such players are rarely enjoyable to be around due to a supposed superiority over other players and attempt to drag the conversation or activity to how they are not playing what they feel is a better game or performing a better activity.

“The Edition Purist”: This person feels that their favored edition is the pinnacle of gaming and anything that comes after it is simple garbage. Every discussion ever brought up with this person devolves into a long winded rant on how things were better when their edition was the newest and how nothing good can ever follow and that the newest edition is going to “kill the franchise”. Often times brutish, the Edition Purist refuses to accept the good in anything other then what they hold as the Gamer Bible and appear to all outside the community as an oafish and intolerant hostile entity that splits the community when in reality they are often times a vocal minority and do not display any community as a whole.

“The Optimist”: The Optimist only has fun when every activity is done at the fullest output with the least amount of effort and time. They forsake needless conversation, skip every side quest and ignore all other “needless additions” such as story and plot so they can reach the end and be the victor. It is the sole defining feature of their character and the only important aspect of anyone else in the party or community they are a part of. Anyone who wastes their time with other “needless additions” is viewed with varied levels of scorn from simple mocking to outright verbal abuse.

“The Philosopher”: This player feels that every action must be codified into some grand perception as they see the world. The Philosopher often mingles the line with the Preacher, demanding all actions and events in a game have a rhyme and rhythm to their actions. Purple arrow fletching must have a reason for being purple while the peasant who complains about taxation must be a metaphor for Community China. The classic “A Cigar is sometimes just a Cigar” scenario never enters into their minds and quickly drags play down into hours of discussion which many other players might not wish to be involved in.

“The Preacher”: This player sees the world in Black and White soley based on their world experiences with little to no desire to look at the Grey that might exist or the outlook of another. Reasons vary on why this is but the most common is similar to the Edition Purist. The Preacher feels that his outlook is the only correct outlook and all others pale in comparison or simply cannot explain a situation well enough for him to accept. They will argue with other players or members of the community about their activates and will at all costs demand the world and role they are playing in adhere to their outlook regardless of if it is practical or not.



I Am the Son of Mayong Mistmoore, Maybe You’ve Heard of Me?

Despite saying that RP is in and of itself an inherently personal activity with no real way to go about it incorrectly if you find the right community, there are steps which one can take that will help you be accepted into a community even if your goals for RP are different.


Don’t make up your own lore or “I’m the Lich King Honest”: While everyone wants to be someone special sometimes, it is wise to remain internally consistent with the world in which you play. If the DM says there are no Chaotic Good Drow then there are no Chaotic Good Drow in his world. If a game in which you play with others has an important figure but there are no children or lovers of said NPC (Non-Player Character) then despite what you wish, your character is not the son of said character. Players will view such poorly if only because it goes blatantly against the Lore and continuity they are familiar with.

God Modding or “I’m Impervious to Lasers”: Respect others should conflict in character occur. A DM or other RPer is not out to kill you and conflict exists in a world where swords and guns and dragons exist. It exists even when dragon’s don’t exist even. Your character isn’t invincible no matter the medium if others are involved. Other players or members of the community will swiftly grow tired of such antics and ignore you. This is not their fault for not acknowledging your characters clear superiority, but caused by the selfish actions you yourself have perpetuated. It is understandable you enjoy your character, but even Superman has suffered defeat before. A lose is humbling but a victory afterwards is often times even more rewarding because of the loss. Take one on the chin every now and then even if you don’t want to. If nothing else, you’ll look better for it.

Your Way is not the Only Way: As said many times already, there are many ways to Role Play. Going into a community with the idea that your way of RPing is inherently better or correct is a sure way to turn said community against you. Learn what others think before dashing in to expound your ideas upon them. Often times preaching isn’t desired and will close doors that were open before you attempted to bully or push your concepts on to others.

No Man is an Island, but he is a Peninsula: You exist in a community, even if your character is a brooding lord of darkness if you do not afford people the chance to connect and speak to him then there is little chance he will be a part of the community you wish to role play with. People can only tolerate angry, violent and rude people for so long before they are ejected from the community just as in real life. Violent sociopaths do not fit into society in the real world, and are unlikely to fit into a community of RPers as well. While these characters may be fun and interesting to play, they are often times difficult if not impossible to integrate successfully into an RP community. Discuss with your DM and player community on how to ease such transitions into the story if applicable or prepare for a difficult ride.

[Shadowknight12]

I posted my thoughts on the subject a while back, but I'll repost them here I suppose.

Wow. That was quite the deep and insightful essay. I think you've hit a lot of good points, and the "can of worms" bit is precisely why I said "that way lies madness" before. All in all, really interesting considerations right there. Of special import is the "reasons we roleplay" bit, since that's a topic a lot of people never pause to consider.

Very interesting.

[Innis Cabal]

Why thank you, I had fully intended to expand further upon it but time and an overnight job nixed all my on going projects.

[Shadowknight12]

Why thank you, I had fully intended to expand further upon it but time and an overnight job nixed all my on going projects.

Replace "job" with "final" and sweet merciful badger, I've been there. So much.

Well, if you ever do add more to it, feel free to drop me a link by PM or something, your writing is pretty clear, concise and conveys the point well. Speaking of which, do you have a link for that essay that I might leave to other people?

[Fax Celestis]

An artist creates something, an actor interprets someone else's creation.

Roleplayers are actors, designers are artists (in some cases, poor artists, but artists nonetheless).

[Innis Cabal]

What if you create the act you're playing? Are you both? I think those definitions are a little to narrow. Why is an actor not an artist, certainly it takes just as much skill to be someone else as it does crafting a painting. If not more so as you're more or less living a piece of art.

[darkpuppy]

*chuckles* Ahhh... The reason many roleplayers do not examine why they roleplay, either in a psychological or philosophical sense, is very taoist. They like the experience, and so do not question the experience.

Also, you're right, quite a few cans of worms here, but one possible explanation of roleplaying's popularity among those who play it is an idea put forward by Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen (Science of Discworld). Pan Narrans, as opposed to Homo Sapien. It's a viewpoint I subscribe to, because, let's face it, we, as a species, are not particularly smart. If we were, we wouldn't have Iraq/Iran, or the Cold War, or a lot of other things. No, we are storytelling apes, and we think in terms of stories.

As to the whole creation thing? there are roleplayers who play in another's world, "interpreting", and only some of those try to "create" a new character idea. Others create new worlds, sometimes this is a riff on something else (what isn't, in art?), and sometimes they try to experiment. It's all a matter of taste, as with art.

Anyways, I don't question it too deeply, and 90% of this post is instinctive response from stream of consciousness, but it is still an interesting discussion.

[Fax Celestis]

What if you create the act you're playing? Are you both? I think those definitions are a little to narrow. Why is an actor not an artist, certainly it takes just as much skill to be someone else as it does crafting a painting. If not more so as you're more or less living a piece of art.

Someone else wrote the script for the actor: all they do is interpret the script into reality, in much the same way that a player interprets their character sheet.

[Urpriest]

Not to preempt Doc Roc here, but I think his intent in asking for a discussion of this was that there is a common argument that a real roleplayer can make interesting fluff out of any class they want, and so classes don't need particularly good fluff. And while this is true up to a point, it assumes that all roleplayers are interested in being creative (in being artists in this thread's parlance), when many are not. They still care about the artistic merit of the role they play: they are roleplayers. But they aren't interested in making a character out of whole cloth. They want the fluff of the classes they play to suggest a characterization, because they enjoy playing a role more than they do crafting a character. In a way, they are the reason why systems die if they don't have interesting fluff to compliment quality mechanics.

[Innis Cabal]

Someone else wrote the script for the actor: all they do is interpret the script into reality, in much the same way that a player interprets their character sheet.

Except plenty of people write their own scripts. Roleplaying a community event, you affect the script you work in, it's not rigid or closed except when rail roaded the whole way. Which is normally not at all well met in the story telling process. Roleplaying is not the same as a movie or a book, it's fluid and the actors are just as much script writers as they are acting within the script.

[Ravens_cry]

Spawned from another thread:



I understand that the definition of artist is someone who creates art. However, I choose to use the above definition because I've yet to find a better one for "person who enjoys being creative, often creating from scratch."

Discuss?
Sure, a role player is quite likely basing their ideas on characters and concepts from other works, but an artist does not? Seriously, artist have constantly being stealing motifs and ideas from other sources as long as there have been artists. It is like the old saying " To steal from one work is plagiarism, to steal from a dozen is research." No artist is completely original and in fact it can quite hinder their work if they do. Originality is not an end all and be all.
Unless of course I am misunderstanding what you mean by "from scratch."

[Shadowknight12]

Unless of course I am misunderstanding what you mean by "from scratch."

Yes, I meant "not blatantly copying or appropriating" by "from scratch." Even if you change them up a little, there is little creative effort spent in simply playing something cribbed off of someone else.

[Ravens_cry]

Yes, I meant "not blatantly copying or appropriating" by "from scratch." Even if you change them up a little, there is little creative effort spent in simply playing something cribbed off of someone else. Well, effort is a variable thing. For someone new to role playing even a blatant Conan expy takes quite a bit of effort. After all, you are doing constant improvisatory acting in front of other people. That can be hard.
Frankly, this whole thing comes off as rather snobbish.
"Oh, you are playing a barbarian? That is a half orc? In a loin cloth? With a big axe? How amusing." <insert condescending chuckle here/>

[Shadowknight12]

Well, effort is a variable thing. For someone new to role playing even a blatant Conan expy takes quite a bit of effort. After all, you are doing constant improvisatory acting in front of other people. That can be hard.
Frankly, this whole thing comes off as rather snobbish.
"Oh, you are playing a barbarian? That is a half orc? In a loin cloth? With a big axe? How amusing." <insert condescending chuckle here/>

By golly, that was not my intention. I cannot roleplay for the life of me. I cannot create, either, for the life of me. I am roughly equally bad at both. Trust me, if there is any condescension here, is towards the "YOU ARE DOIN IT WRONG" crowd.

[Ravens_cry]

By golly, that was not my intention. I cannot roleplay for the life of me. I cannot create, either, for the life of me. I am roughly equally bad at both. Trust me, if there is any condescension here, is towards the "YOU ARE DOIN IT WRONG" crowd.
All right then, I was explaining how it made me feel. I can see now that was not your intention.

[Shadowknight12]

All right then, I was explaining how it made me feel. I can see now that was not your intention.

Oh, all right, no harm done. Still, I was originally defending the roleplayer's right not to create fluff if they prefer to play classes with premade fluff, or to be given fluff instead of creating it from scratch. So I was defending the right of the theoretical player who wants to play a half-orc barbarian with a loincloth and that swings around a big, long, thick, hefty axe.

[dsmiles]

So I was defending the right of the player to play a half-orc barbarian with a loincloth and who swings around a big, long, thick, hefty axe.A half-orc barbarian with compensation issues? Nah. Couldn't happen.

[Shadowknight12]

A half-orc barbarian with compensation issues? Nah. Couldn't happen.

That's why real men dual-wield poisoned needles.

[Shadowknight12]

A half-orc barbarian with compensation issues? Nah. Couldn't happen.

That's why real men dual-wield poisoned needles.

EDIT: Apparently the server thought it'd be funny if I dual-wielded that post.

[Willfor]

That's why real men dual-wield poisoned needles.

EDIT: Apparently the server thought it'd be funny if I dual-wielded that post.

The server hasn't been known to optimize people's posts. It should have focused on making you power attack with it.

[Tyndmyr]

Spawned from another thread:



I understand that the definition of artist is someone who creates art. However, I choose to use the above definition because I've yet to find a better one for "person who enjoys being creative, often creating from scratch."

Discuss?

It's decent. I wouldn't consider every bit of roleplaying to be art. It might sometimes involve art(look at the cover of your gaming books if you disbelieve me), but the whole "everything is art" approach doesn't strike me as a useful definition.

[erikun]

I posted my thoughts on the subject a while back, but I'll repost them here I suppose.
I've considered roleplaying to be acting out a role in a situation where you can get a consistently realistic - or at least, consistently reasonable - response to your acting. That's what makes it a social activity, whether you're doing it for gaming or doing it for psychology. You act out an action, and you get the response you'd expect if you'd taken the action. That's what makes it different from acting - acting is just the method of, well, acting.

I suppose it's a bit of a sparse definition, though. Nice job with the history and such of roleplay. I do note that your Don’t make up your own lore section might be mistitled - the problem is not in making up lore, as most DMs expect a backstory and like when players include interesting persons or locales. The problem is when players conflict with existing lore. Coming from an elf tribe in the far western forests generally isn't a problem if there was nothing in the far west anyways. Coming from the floating continent which economically dominates all of society and which gave birth to the gods, though, probably represents a conflict with some lore in the campaign.


Not to preempt Doc Roc here, but I think his intent in asking for a discussion of this was that there is a common argument that a real roleplayer can make interesting fluff out of any class they want, and so classes don't need particularly good fluff.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I'm not seeing much of anything related to that point in the thread. Oh sure, a good Author (to use the term from earlier) can craft a story and reasoning with the material given, even if that material is fluffless. And a good Actor can run with whatever fluff is presented, or whatever fluff they create. That doesn't make existing fluff good or bad, as Authors can re-write (if allowed) or write around existing fluff, and Actors can work with the fluff present, or craft their own.

It's pretty clear that fluffless systems can work - GURPS works just fine. It's also clear that fluffful systems can work as well - World of Darkness and Shadowrun have no problems either.

(Note that I'm responding because this is an interesting line of thought, regardless of if Doc Roc has a position one way or the other. I'll avoid assuming what his opinion is, as I didn't check the other thread.)

[Fax Celestis]

Except plenty of people write their own scripts. Roleplaying a community event, you affect the script you work in, it's not rigid or closed except when rail roaded the whole way. Which is normally not at all well met in the story telling process. Roleplaying is not the same as a movie or a book, it's fluid and the actors are just as much script writers as they are acting within the script.

Which is still exactly in line with what I actually said, instead of what you thought I said.

[Urpriest]

Well, effort is a variable thing. For someone new to role playing even a blatant Conan expy takes quite a bit of effort. After all, you are doing constant improvisatory acting in front of other people. That can be hard.
Frankly, this whole thing comes off as rather snobbish.
"Oh, you are playing a barbarian? That is a half orc? In a loin cloth? With a big axe? How amusing." <insert condescending chuckle here/>

An interesting question then becomes: D&D, having Barbarians, has things like this that new players can play. What if a system didn't have such clear archetypes? What if a system was made primarily to be balanced, and had, for example, a class called the Tactician that was sort of a martial leader and sort of a battlefield control spellcaster, and a class called the Sage that was a sort of limited spellcaster who also could fight in melee some, etc? Does the comparative lack of predetermined roles like the stereotypical half-orc barbarian weaken a system's ability to appeal to a wide audience? Is there an important demographic that needs clear archetypes?

[dextercorvia]

This reminds me of Shadowrun 3e. You customized your character, but at the middle of the book in glossy pages were the archetypes -- examples of the mechanics complete with fluff. It took me a while during character creation with my GM to get that through my class loving head, but in the end, I was the one with the least non-d&d experience, and the character least like one of the archetypes. I enjoy crafting a character fluff and crunch. Sometimes I enjoy stepping into a role, but either way, having a baseline to compare to does me some good.

[Totally Guy]

The Escapist did something very relevant recently. It's about video games but I think it particularly suited Roleplay.

Role of the Player (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/3555-The-Role-of-the-Player)

[Ravens_cry]

An interesting question then becomes: D&D, having Barbarians, has things like this that new players can play. What if a system didn't have such clear archetypes? What if a system was made primarily to be balanced, and had, for example, a class called the Tactician that was sort of a martial leader and sort of a battlefield control spellcaster, and a class called the Sage that was a sort of limited spellcaster who also could fight in melee some, etc? Does the comparative lack of predetermined roles like the stereotypical half-orc barbarian weaken a system's ability to appeal to a wide audience? Is there an important demographic that needs clear archetypes?
Considering I bought both the PHB for 3.5 and was able to make a half-orc sorceress, complete with back story and original character art, on my own (it took me 2 days, but I did it) within a week of owning the book, while I have yet to make character in Mutants and Masterminds 2nd edition or DC adventures, I would say . . .yes?
Despite the derision it gets for being broken, I think 3.5 hits a nice sweet spot between flexibility, especially with the common 'no multi-class penalties' house rule and archetype based play. Classes can be both user-fluffed sets of mechanics and character archetypes.
Unless you are the kind of player who likes systems on their mathematical merits and love building for the sake of building, a perfectly fine way to play, having archetypes at the gate helps smooth the transition.
Blocks of stats for many new players are intimidating, but way before I started playing I would take 3.X books out from the local library and just read them for the fluff and look at the pretty pictures for ideas for my own art.
Personally, I think one of the problems in 4th edition for many players, especially coming from 3.X, was it was too archetype based with not enough depth of options. Sure, a lot of 3.X options are bad, see my 14 charisma half orc sorceress, but you could still play them. There was less room for the tinkerers in Fourth Edition.

[Frozen_Feet]

An interesting question then becomes: D&D, having Barbarians, has things like this that new players can play. What if a system didn't have such clear archetypes? What if a system was made primarily to be balanced, and had, for example, a class called the Tactician that was sort of a martial leader and sort of a battlefield control spellcaster, and a class called the Sage that was a sort of limited spellcaster who also could fight in melee some, etc? Does the comparative lack of predetermined roles like the stereotypical half-orc barbarian weaken a system's ability to appeal to a wide audience? Is there an important demographic that needs clear archetypes?

System without such clear archetypes tend to be "general systems" (GURPS comes to mind), and on these very boards there've been several players who've stated to dislike such systems or found them too complex because they lack a distinct fluff of their own. As a general rule, it takes both a more skilled GM and skilled players to get most out of them.

I know that I bought most games I own not because I had a great idea I wanted to implement (I've almost always tried to make my own mechanics for such first), but because I wanted to play a part of the game's setting. Good rules for doing just that were extras.

I bought Praedor, because I wanted to play praedors and the people from the original comics. I bought Lord of the Rings RPG because I wanted to play games in Middle-Earth. I bought Tähti because the idea of playing teenage mutant pop-idols in near-future Finland sounded fun. I bought Lamentations of the Flame Princess because I wanted to someday play, or have my players play, the scene in the box cover of the game.

I think these kinds of specific archetypes appeal to those players who lean more towards Actors than Author. The same people who like to write fan-fiction, even - it's the archetypes and specifics of a setting, genre or game that appeal to them the most, and they set out to have their fun within those limitations.

A generic system simply would not have any draw to these people, unless they also published some splatbook specifically made to appeal to these people (see GURPS with its bazillion expansions for different genres). A specific system with odd archetypes would face the problem of not having an existing crowd to appeal to, increasing need for promotional work. For example, Praedor wouldn't have caught my attention if I hadn't been familiar with the comics, and LotR RPG obviously sold itself due to dear and familiar setting.

[Shadowknight12]

The server hasn't been known to optimize people's posts. It should have focused on making you power attack with it.

And I don't even have Sneak Attack to take advantage of the dual-wielding...


It's decent. I wouldn't consider every bit of roleplaying to be art. It might sometimes involve art(look at the cover of your gaming books if you disbelieve me), but the whole "everything is art" approach doesn't strike me as a useful definition.

That... was not what I wanted to say. It seems that "artist" was a REALLY bad choice of word, since I was never putting into question whether roleplaying is art or not. My definition of artist in this context is not "person who creates art" but "person who enjoys the process of creation."


Is there an important demographic that needs clear archetypes?

At the risk of seeming self-referential, yes. Why?


Because not everyone is an artist.

[Urpriest]

At the risk of seeming self-referential, yes. Why?

Well again I don't want to preempt Doc Roc if he ever decides to grace this thread with his presence, but:

Why? Because then Legend has a serious problem.:smallbiggrin:

[Shadowknight12]

Well again I don't want to preempt Doc Roc if he ever decides to grace this thread with his presence, but:

Why? Because then Legend has a serious problem.:smallbiggrin:

Yeah, I noticed. That's why what I suggested was the natural middle ground of this debate. Present standard fluff, then make a whole chapter or appendix teaching DMs and characters how to change pre-existent mechanics to fit their settings. Using the same example I used there, if I want elves to be part of the Fey, feared and given tribute by villagers, I should have some way to do this while still knowing if my hapless tinkering is still mechanically balanced with everything else in the game.

Game systems suffer a strange malady, hoarding the secrets of how to create/modify mechanics (and keep them balanced), fearing that the moment a group figures out how to do so, their sales will inevitably drop. It's puzzling, really, because it assumes that players will rather suffer and wait for the designers to give them what they want, rather than make modifications anyway and play to their heart's content. I mean, really. There have been houserules from the times of 1E. 3.5e has had such thriving homebrew it's frankly astonishing. Designers have to start opening their eyes and paying attention. WotC and WW treat players like consumers first. And dumb consumers at that. Other designers must learn to break the mould.

[Knaight]

Game systems suffer a strange malady, hoarding the secrets of how to create/modify mechanics (and keep them balanced), fearing that the moment a group figures out how to do so, their sales will inevitably drop. It's puzzling, really, because it assumes that players will rather suffer and wait for the designers to give them what they want, rather than make modifications anyway and play to their heart's content. I mean, really. There have been houserules from the times of 1E. 3.5e has had such thriving homebrew it's frankly astonishing. Designers have to start opening their eyes and paying attention. WotC and WW treat players like consumers first. And dumb consumers at that. Other designers must learn to break the mould.

Other designers do so. Said designers are nowhere near as successful as WotC and White Wolf.

[averagejoe]

An interesting question then becomes: D&D, having Barbarians, has things like this that new players can play. What if a system didn't have such clear archetypes? What if a system was made primarily to be balanced, and had, for example, a class called the Tactician that was sort of a martial leader and sort of a battlefield control spellcaster, and a class called the Sage that was a sort of limited spellcaster who also could fight in melee some, etc? Does the comparative lack of predetermined roles like the stereotypical half-orc barbarian weaken a system's ability to appeal to a wide audience? Is there an important demographic that needs clear archetypes?

I don't think it's just new players. I like to think that I can make lemonade by reinterpreting any class as needed fluff-wise. However, it's still a pleasure to find a bit of fluff that's just plain inspiring on it's own.

[Doc Roc]

Thank you for starting this, Shadow. I hope you'll pardon me if I just lurk for a while?

I've been thinking about the archetype issue with respect to Legend, and I do think I agree. We're going to try and make the classes more distinct in their flavor and archetypal presentation. Art should help a lot with that, as will the fluff. But I think we'll probably add a short "How Do I Build That?!" chapter, where we cover certain critical characters, and provide a little fluff for each of them, things like:

Ranger, dropping Reign Of Arrows for Masked Rider
Also known as Batman.

[Yukitsu]

The Escapist did something very relevant recently. It's about video games but I think it particularly suited Roleplay.

Role of the Player (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/3555-The-Role-of-the-Player)

They did a follow up on this from a game designer with a contrary view. I think that both sides have certain points, but I don't really agree a game is incomplete until the player plays it, or that he truly is a creator of the game.

Extra-Credits-Addendum-Discussing-the-Role-of-the-Player (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/misc/8976-Extra-Credits-Addendum-Discussing-the-Role-of-the-Player)

I don't really like the view of anything creative being art. That makes pretty much anyone an artist in their given job, and the title "artist" mostly just a pretense.

[Doc Roc]

For reference, and the sake of clarity, I do not consider myself an artist, either in my day job or in my work on legend. In fact, I do not consider myself an author, either. I think of myself just as a programmer, or perhaps something much like a mechanic.

[DontEatRawHagis]

As far as myself. I consider myself an Improv Actor when I roleplay some characters.

Art I feel should be something more tangible, as for being an author I feel it needs to be something more concrete.

I write stories, I act my part, I paint a picture.

As far as what makes art art, I feel like we would need a more metaphysical group of people for that discussion.

[Shadowknight12]

Thank you for starting this, Shadow. I hope you'll pardon me if I just lurk for a while?

I've been thinking about the archetype issue with respect to Legend, and I do think I agree. We're going to try and make the classes more distinct in their flavor and archetypal presentation. Art should help a lot with that, as will the fluff. But I think we'll probably add a short "How Do I Build That?!" chapter, where we cover certain critical characters, and provide a little fluff for each of them, things like:

Ranger, dropping Reign Of Arrows for Masked Rider
Also known as Batman.

No problem, I'm glad to help. Lurk away! I'm sure we have conversation to last us for a while now.

That's definitely something that will help you go a long, long way into getting a stronger following.


They did a follow up on this from a game designer with a contrary view. I think that both sides have certain points, but I don't really agree a game is incomplete until the player plays it, or that he truly is a creator of the game.

Extra-Credits-Addendum-Discussing-the-Role-of-the-Player (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/misc/8976-Extra-Credits-Addendum-Discussing-the-Role-of-the-Player)

I don't really like the view of anything creative being art. That makes pretty much anyone an artist in their given job, and the title "artist" mostly just a pretense.

The thread is not about art. It is not about RPGs as art. It is not about artistic value or artistic merit. The word artist is being used to define the person who enjoys the process of creation.

Also, thanks for the link.


For reference, and the sake of clarity, I do not consider myself an artist, either in my day job or in my work on legend. In fact, I do not consider myself an author, either. I think of myself just as a programmer, or perhaps something much like a mechanic.

The thread is not about art! :smalltongue:


As far as myself. I consider myself an Improv Actor when I roleplay some characters.

Art I feel should be something more tangible, as for being an author I feel it needs to be something more concrete.

I write stories, I act my part, I paint a picture.

As far as what makes art art, I feel like we would need a more metaphysical group of people for that discussion.

AARRRRGH. The thread! Is not! About art! :smallbiggrin:

[Yukitsu]

Pretty much impossible to say that a dude is an artist or not an artist when you aren't talking about art.

[Shadowknight12]

Pretty much impossible to say that a dude is an artist or not an artist when you aren't talking about art.

Allow me to quote myself:


I understand that the definition of artist is someone who creates art. However, I choose to use the above definition because I've yet to find a better one for "person who enjoys being creative, often creating from scratch."

Emphasis mine.

Author has been suggested, but the Author is a type of Artist. Creator is also an option, but it doesn't fit the definition either, because a Creator is not necessarily enjoying the act of creation or being creative at all. A person who creates things in order to sell them might do so for the money, with absolutely no enjoyment or creativity whatsoever.

[Tyndmyr]

Considering I bought both the PHB for 3.5 and was able to make a half-orc sorceress, complete with back story and original character art, on my own (it took me 2 days, but I did it) within a week of owning the book, while I have yet to make character in Mutants and Masterminds 2nd edition or DC adventures, I would say . . .yes?
Despite the derision it gets for being broken, I think 3.5 hits a nice sweet spot between flexibility, especially with the common 'no multi-class penalties' house rule and archetype based play. Classes can be both user-fluffed sets of mechanics and character archetypes.
Unless you are the kind of player who likes systems on their mathematical merits and love building for the sake of building, a perfectly fine way to play, having archetypes at the gate helps smooth the transition.
Blocks of stats for many new players are intimidating, but way before I started playing I would take 3.X books out from the local library and just read them for the fluff and look at the pretty pictures for ideas for my own art.
Personally, I think one of the problems in 4th edition for many players, especially coming from 3.X, was it was too archetype based with not enough depth of options. Sure, a lot of 3.X options are bad, see my 14 charisma half orc sorceress, but you could still play them. There was less room for the tinkerers in Fourth Edition.

I actually agree. Balance may be a virtue...but it's certainly not the only one, and it's less important than many other things. Nobody cares how balanced a game is if it's not actually interesting or fun, of course. FATAL could be the most balanced game in the world, and I still wouldn't want to play it.

I suspect that the internet makes balance out to be a much bigger deal than it is in actual play. I've actually played 3.5 with incredible tier gaps and blatant power disparities, and nobody batted an eye. It was just assumed that of course the wizard who can bend reality is going to be god-like.

I feel like setting is a huge part of what makes many RPGs interesting. Sure, CoC's mechanics are not terrible...but they're not why we get into the game. Archtypes can be a solid part of that. I strongly dislike Gurps and Hero system, and I feel like while other complaints can be pointed against them, the lack of archtypes or distinct settings that evoke archtype-like images is part of the reason for the lack of appeal.

[dsmiles]

A person who creates things in order to sell them might do so for the money, with absolutely no enjoyment or creativity whatsoever.So...the game developers at WotC? :smalltongue:


I actually agree. Balance may be a virtue...but it's certainly not the only one, and it's less important than many other things. Nobody cares how balanced a game is if it's not actually interesting or fun, of course. FATAL could be the most balanced game in the world, and I still wouldn't want to play it. Um...I don't think anyone wants to play FATAL. :smalleek:
On the subject of balance, I agree. As much as I like a balanced system, if it's not fun, I'm not going to play it.

I suspect that the internet makes balance out to be a much bigger deal than it is in actual play. I've actually played 3.5 with incredible tier gaps and blatant power disparities, and nobody batted an eye. It was just assumed that of course the wizard who can bend reality is going to be god-like. Also see: Gentleman's Agreement.
Especially if you're playing in a low-op group, like mine. It's agreed on that the wizard isn't going to break the world with his/her godlike power.

I feel like setting is a huge part of what makes many RPGs interesting. Sure, CoC's mechanics are not terrible...but they're not why we get into the game. Archtypes can be a solid part of that. I strongly dislike Gurps and Hero system, and I feel like while other complaints can be pointed against them, the lack of archtypes or distinct settings that evoke archtype-like images is part of the reason for the lack of appeal.I played Champions once...*shudder* :smalleek:
The only thing that kept me going was the fact that I was playing a Tick clone, and was the only comedy relief the party had.

[Frozen_Feet]

I suspect that the internet makes balance out to be a much bigger deal than it is in actual play. I've actually played 3.5 with incredible tier gaps and blatant power disparities, and nobody batted an eye. It was just assumed that of course the wizard who can bend reality is going to be god-like.


I suspect that's because roleplaying is not just about a fair game, it's about playing roles, and wild power disperancy is fundamental to implementation of certain roles and games revolving around them. Someone might be perfectly happy to play the foolish commoner who is kinda just dragged along, because that's what they set out to be.

If someone then goes to a rant about how they could be more useful by playing X instead of Y, their answer will be "Huh?".