Musings : Role-playing Vs Game

[Raven777]

There's a kind of player that usually has an undeserved bad reputation in some role-playing circles. They are talked about with disdain. Made the butt monkey of jokes. Flat out told that they do not understand the nature of the game and play it for the "wrong" reasons. They are the so called power gamers, min/maxers, optimizers, who mind more the numbers than the stories they are supposed to support.

I would like to argue that "gamers" can care about role-playing games as much as the role-players do. It's just that they focus on the game part of the equation. Maybe it comes from their personal background? For example, a heroic tier World of Warcraft raider will have been conditioned to optimize his character build just as a power gamer would do in a session of D&D. The odds of a Skyrim player butchering the whole town of Whiterun and pocketing every items not nailed down and on fire approach 100% as he goes up in levels.

And to him, D&D might well be just one more game. He might very well be as baffled by a good Cleric disapproving Undead to the detriment of party power as he'd be baffled by his guild Paladin healers suddenly refusing to group with Warlocks on raid night. Or feel unjustly restricted when his group-mates disapprove of him elbowing a guard through a fifth story window when he did it without a hitch on every play-through as Renegade Commander Shepard in Mass Effect. Why would his fellow players be against what he does, when what he does makes them all more likely to succeed, faster?

He could understand the concept of role-play and self constraints, intellectually, but would be annoyed at it suddenly stepping on his idea of fun and efficiency. Especially when role-players start resorting to actively oppose his character's actions, still to the detriment of his notion of party effectiveness and group cohesion. After all, he doesn't stop the paladin from having the party's forest guide raised and given a share of the loot they could have kept, if that's the paladin's schtick. By what right are they justified to oppose him being a Lich if he wants the perks?

And why would his style generally be assumed to be the mistaken one? Is role-play more worthy than system play? Complex, deep, enthralling stories are an undeniably noble goal. But isn't mastering a complex, deep, challenging rules system to empower yourself to do whatever you want a fair objective?

And when you have both kinds of players in the same group, and the "get your fluff out of my crunch" and "get your crunch out of my fluff" attitudes spark more and more conflict, how do you reconcile both?

[Flickerdart]

There's a kind of player that usually has an undeserved bad reputation in role-playing circles. They are talked about with disdain. Made the butt monkey of jokes. Flat out told that they do not understand the nature of the game and play it for the "wrong" reasons. They are the so called munchkins. The ones who care more about the number of pluses on a staff than the fact it runs on the souls of orphans.
You're thinking of powergamers. Munchkins are people who deliberately cheat, "forget" penalties, and even fudge dice in order for their character to be "the strongest".

The other groups often painted with the same brush are min-maxers (people who try to maximize one thing at the expense of anything else, but take the penalties with stride) and optimizers (people who have a baseline level of competence for their characters, and strive to achieve it).

[Raven777]

Really? The few table top players I frequent always used all these terms interchangeably.

Still, the matter at hand remains.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm not sure how you did it, but you've conflated munchkinism with the stormwind fallacy.

A munchkin doesn't just care more about the numbers on the sheet than the in-universe character they're supposed to represent, he cares about the numbers on the sheet more than he cares about his ostensible friends having a good time. He cares more about gaining personal power in the game world than how his methods might affect the party's goals. He cares more about getting his way than anything else.

He's a selfish ass that's treating a social game as one more video game with no concern for his fellow players. That's the problem. Not that he may or may not care about the roleplaying aspect of the game.

[Karnith]

Generally speaking, "munchkin" in other places (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Munchkin) can be broadly applied to both optimizers (and min-maxers, powergamers, etc.) and people who flat-out cheat to "win" when playing the game. On most optimization boards I've visited, "munchkin" is used only to refer to people who actually cheat, while "min-maxer," "powergamer," or "optimizer" are more neutral terms (and generally have slightly different connotations, as Flickerdart has pointed out).

[Raven777]

I'm not sure how you did it, but you've conflated munchkinism with the stormwind fallacy.

A munchkin doesn't just care more about the numbers on the sheet than the in-universe character they're supposed to represent, he cares about the numbers on the sheet more than he cares about his ostensible friends having a good time. He cares more about gaining personal power in the game world than how his methods might affect the party's goals. He cares more about getting his way than anything else.

He's a selfish ass that's treating a social game as one more video game with no concern for his fellow players. That's the problem. Not that he may or may not care about the roleplaying aspect of the game.

But what if player A bogs down the game to a screeching protest filled halt as soon as player B announces he feels like whipping up a cadre of Undeads because it'd be fun? And then the "my character would never allow that" starts being thrown? Who's disregarding who's fun?

[Kelb_Panthera]

But what if player A bogs down the game to a screeching protest filled halt as soon as player B announces he feels like whipping up a cadre of Undeads because it'd be fun? And then the "my character would never allow that" starts being thrown? Who's disregarding who's fun?

It's entirely possible that they're both munchkins. Not that it matters. What you've described here is a much deeper issue than simply labeling one or the other player. It's an issue of compatibility. In all likelyhood these two players are going to clash because of differing values on the roleplay-rollplay dynamic. Obviously one or the other is going to have to give a little and which one that is depends on the other 3-ish people at the table.

It's when they demand they get their way regardless of whether the rest of the group feels they're out of line that they get the munchkin label.

[Sacrieur]

But what if player A bogs down the game to a screeching protest filled halt as soon as player B announces he feels like whipping up a cadre of Undeads because it'd be fun? And then the "my character would never allow that" starts being thrown? Who's disregarding who's fun?

We call those jokers, clowns. You know, the kind of people that play CN and use it to justify wearing a boot on their head as a hat.

They're just annoying, but they follow the rules.

[Flickerdart]

But what if player A bogs down the game to a screeching protest filled halt as soon as player B announces he feels like whipping up a cadre of Undeads because it'd be fun? And then the "my character would never allow that" starts being thrown? Who's disregarding who's fun?
That doesn't really have anything to do with munchkinism. Munchkinism would be if player B "turned out" to have a scroll of Animate Dead tucked away, or player A cast a Destroy Undead spell that he "totally prepared today, honest".

[Raven777]

That doesn't really have anything to do with munchkinism. Munchkinism would be if player B "turned out" to have a scroll of Animate Dead tucked away, or player A cast a Destroy Undead spell that he "totally prepared today, honest".

My bad on using the wrong term. My quandary was more concerned with ways to reconcile players more concerned with accruing power to run around and mess with things with players who expect a more serious, organic, benevolent tone. I now understand better that the role-play part of it and the power-gaming part of it might me two different issues entirely.

[yougi]

I think the OP's focus was not the difference between Munchkins and power gamers. While I understand your desire to show the difference, I'll go ahead and address the main question now that it has been done.

D&D is a vast game, with a lot to offer. There's of course the role-roll continuum, but also the optimization level one likes, the type of "missions" one likes to play, the realism - rule of fun dilemma, and many more. There's no WRONG way of doing it, but people have different tastes, and as such, will want different things. Given that it's a social game, needing generally 4+ people to work, and they have to understand what each person wants/expects, and if their playstyles are compatible, much like in any deep, prolonged interaction with other human beings. In one of my groups, we spend so much on RP situations (getting nice clothes, buying high quality drinks and meals, offering money to the poor, to the families of deceased companions, to churches, etc...), just cause, while in another one, we try to find a way to break into an inn's stable to sleep for free.

In your undead raising example, if the situation ends up being positive (tension between characters, not players), then it's one of the best parts of an RPG (in my own opinion). If it tears the group apart, then the problem comes from before, when the group (to a certain extent the DM) did not set the expectations.

[Flickerdart]

Upon rereading the OP and glossing over the misuse of "munchkins", something is pretty clear. A general hands-off policy when it comes to the actions of others, disregard for consequences, abuse of power...you're not really talking about people, you're talking about the Chaotic Evil alignment. While there's a time and a place for CE characters, in a party of characters of other alignments, there's going to be tension. Remind such a player that there are eight other alignments that will probably all work better with the group, and encourage him to roleplay one of them instead.

However, it's worth taking a look at your DMing style, too. What reason do these powerful heroes have to not execute that lowly guard, or steal that weapon without paying, or turn the village graveyard into their personal necromancy emporium? Characters past level 6 or so are way too powerful to need the protection of the law, and spend most of their time kicking around in the wilderness anyway. These rough and tumble warriors need something to remind them that killing things and taking their stuff is only a good idea outside the city walls, and that what they do out there can have consequences back home.

You don't want them raising undead? Why? Demonstrate in-game why undead are evil in your setting. After all, if the guy is fine with making undead, and the cleric is against it, it's the cleric's faith that's the problem, and he's the one that needs to make it clear why undead are bad juju.

[ArcturusV]

Well, my rule of thumb is always, "Good Roleplay never brings the game crashing to a halt".

As far as the "Well that's what my character would do?"

The guy is being an ass. Almost anyone has a wide range of possible responses to any stimuli. There's no one locked kneejerk "always going to happen" reaction. So it's not even "Out of Character" to decide to play your character's response in a different way. If you have a guy who wants to animate undead, and a guy who disapproves it? Instead of attacking the guy, throwing out ultimatums, or just destroying his undead or ruining his spell, he might do something like just warn him about the evil nature of creating undead, how they can go out of control, and possible unintended consequences. Leave it at a "Well... I warned you... so do be careful." and move on.

Just like I stamp out guys who are actual munchkins and "cheat", or use IC consequences for the type of player that 4th edition kindly calls an "instigator" (I usually called them An Ass.), with obvious, relevant consequences for their actions... I punish guys who bring games to a halt by throwing hissy fits because someone isn't playing exactly how they want to play. Usually Lawful characters throwing a hissy fit in my experience. you don't usually have the Chaotic Evil guy doing something like that because some other party member healed an NPC he wanted to kill. He usually just waits until no one is looking then slits said NPC's throat.

How I punish them depends on how severe it is, and the particulars of the game and people. But I run low tolerance myself for that sort of stuff.

[Psyren]

I would edit the OP to replace "munchkin" with "powergamer" or "optimizer." Claiming to defend one side but labelling them with a pejorative term is contradictory.


Anyway, the player whose attitudes towards D&D are based on Skyrim and WoW isn't exactly in the right either. In Skyrim, there are no other players whose fun he can ruin by... doing the kinds of things you said (e.g. looting and pillaging everything not nailed down, or min-maxing his build to outperform anyone else trying to do anything similar.) Nor do I necessarily agree with Flickerdart that doing such things makes your character CE in the context of those games - after all, Link smashes entire storefronts worth of pottery for other people's rupees and he's pretty clearly good aligned. It's just video game logic.

But VG logic doesn't work so well in a tabletop environment. No one player is the star of the show; it's a shared experience. WoW comes closer here but still falls short, because WoW has no DM, just a series of ones and zeros that pre-generate the challenges you face. You don't have to worry about their fun, so min-maxing your build to steamroll them all won't ever get boring for them. Nor can you come close to the level of game-breaking in WoW that you can in D&D thanks to subjective abilities and poor editing.

So while I see your point, a powergamer who derives his attitude towards all forms of gaming from a video game setting may very well be doing it wrong if he takes the wrong lessons from that environment to apply to D&D.

[Flickerdart]

Nor do I necessarily agree with Flickerdart that doing such things makes your character CE in the context of those games - after all, Link smashes entire storefronts worth of pottery for other people's rupees and he's pretty clearly good aligned. It's just video game logic.
In the context of those games, alignments aren't a thing. But that attitude in D&D is quite clearly a CE one. How you got from my post to "Link is CE" is frankly baffling to me.

[LordBlades]

Well, my rule of thumb is always, "Good Roleplay never brings the game crashing to a halt".



I've seen it happen. Sometimes, especially when you're playing characters with highly detailed personalities, you will come across situations your character feels so strongly about that the possible list of actions that makes sense from an IC perspective is rather small. And when two characters have conflicting views on such a situation, one of the players probably needs to do some 'bad roleplaying' (making a call that makes more sense from an OOC perspective rather than an IC one) in order to prevent conflict.

[Psyren]

In the context of those games, alignments aren't a thing. But that attitude in D&D is quite clearly a CE one. How you got from my post to "Link is CE" is frankly baffling to me.

Well, it could be a CE attitude - I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. Say random villager has a powerful artifact in his house - asking him for it would be the nice thing to do, but taking it by force or theft wouldn't necessarily be evil, particularly if the thing poses a clear danger to others (either on its own or due to the sort of attention it would attract) and time is of the essence. Similarly, you need circumstances to know at what point use of power becomes abuse of power, and "when it hurts someone else" is not always enough.

[Raven777]

OP might be clearer now. I would like to precise that I paint the situation as more extreme than it actually is for the sake of discussion. My group has recently run into these kinds of deals more frequently, but nothing we cannot solve out of character as reasonable adults, but I feel both sides make legitimate points : one's ability to play his cleric as good and devout suffers from the other's disinterest for moral cases, and the other's ability to try "fun cool things" suffers from the one's want to oppose his nastier ideas.

[ArcturusV]

Oh, I've seen it happen. But it's also been something that everytime I've seen it, it could have easily been avoided and STILL been in character.

For example, I ended up running a game with an altruistic goody good, and a kelptomaniac both on the same team. The Goody Good found a rare and valuable material that could be used to vastly improve the quality of life of the village they were operating out of during a solo adventure (Other guy didn't show up that session).

Now being the Goody Good, he decided in character that since he could use it, and the village needed it, and that he earned it himself, he was going to take half of it for himself, and give the rest to the village to use.

Next session he's just about to hand it off for a reward. Other guy is there. Sees the valuable shiny, and because ICily he's a Kleptomaniac decides it's IC to steal some of it from the Goody Good.

Now, the Goody Good throws a fit (And I don't necessarily disagree with him, you should never steal from other party members unless it's a really narrow situation like stealing someone's cursed sword so they are no longer cursed...). This brings the game to a halt, and both characters are convinced they are in the right and ICily it's right.

But... just as ICily justifiable, the Klepto could have stolen the material he wanted from the Village's share, instead of from his ally. And then there wouldn't have really been a conflict. At the very least not the conflict that resulted from him ICily getting caught stealing from his teammate.

Or the Goody Good could have just willingly shared his half with the Kleptomaniac, and I am certain that despite the Klepto swearing it was "IC" to steal stuff, he would have just been happy to have it because in this case his "IC" stuff was motivated by his OOC need to have all the shinies and not be left out. And that would have also been in nature for the Goody Good. And avoided the conflict.

Instead though they needlessly butted heads when it was just as simple to avoid it. Hell, the guy could have just ASKED for a bit too OOCily and thus inspire the guy ICily to share. But they never considered that. And they SWORE it was the only way they could have possibly acted and that they HAD to go to blows over this.

... even after I pointed out the logical alternatives that could have avoided it. But I think if someone approached them with that alternative before there was a fight about it... there wouldn't have been an issue at all with doing it. The only reason they turned down the reasonable alternate suggestions is because it was already a fight and they were stubborn rage locked on "I'm right and he's a ****!"

[Psyren]

*snip*

Not only do I agree with this, I daresay The Giant does too. (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html)


Decide to React Differently: Have you ever had a party break down into fighting over the actions of one of their members? Has a character ever threatened repeatedly to leave the party? Often, intraparty fighting boils down to one player declaring, "That's how my character would react." Heck, often you'll be the one saying it; it's a common reaction when alignments or codes of ethics clash.

However, it also creates a logjam where neither side wants to back down. The key to resolving this problem is to decide to react differently. You are not your character, and your character is not a separate entity with reactions that you cannot control. I can't tell you how many times I've heard a player state that their character's actions are not under their control. Every decision your character makes is your decision first. It is possible and even preferable for you to craft a personality that is consistent but also accommodating of the characters the other players wish to play.

When you think about a situation, ask yourself, "Is this the only way my character can react to this?" Chances are, the answer is, "No." Try to refine your character so that you can deal with situations that conflict with your alignment/ethos without resorting to ultimatums, threats, etc. This will often mean thinking in terms of compromise and concession to your fellow players, or at the very least an agreement to disagree.

Here's another example: In a campaign I DM'd, the party's bard lifted a magical sword behind the back of the party's Lawful Good monk. The monk had basically decided that the bodies of several fallen knights would be buried without looting, and rather than argue, the bard just grabbed the sword. The bad news was, the sword was cursed; it was the blade that had belonged to a ghost that roamed the castle, and whenever the bard drew it, the ghost materialized and attacked him (and only him). Eventually, the bard 'fessed up that he had stolen the sword. The monk (and the monk's player) became furious, and declared that he could no longer travel with the bard. Either the bard had to leave, or he would. It became a huge argument between characters and players, and it was entirely unnecessary. The monk did not have to react with an ultimatum; the monk did not even have to be angry, no matter what his alignment was. The bard had already suffered the misfortune of having his Charisma drained by the ghost repeatedly; the monk could have chosen (for example) to lecture the bard on how his theft had brought him nothing but misery. He chose to create player conflict when it was just as easy to not.

Personally, I blame the paladin for this. The original paladin class created the precedent for one player thinking he has the right to dictate the morality of other players. That drives me nuts. Ever since, players who select a Lawful Good character automatically assume it is up to them to police the rest of the party, and too often, the rest of the party lets them. As far as I'm concerned, no player has the right to tell another player how to act. Lawful Good is not the "right" way to be, and it is unacceptable to push your character's ideals on other players whether they want them or not.

Another useful application of this concept involves accepting story hooks your DM gives to you. Try to never just say, "My character isn't interested in that adventure." A lot of people mistake this for good roleplaying, because you are asserting your character's personality. Wrong. Good roleplaying should never bring the game to a screeching halt. One of your jobs as a player is to come up with a reason why your character would be interested in a plot. After all, your personality is entirely in your hands, not the DM's. Come up with a reason why the adventure (or the reward) might appeal to you, no matter how esoteric or roundabout the reasoning.

If the paladin is to blame for the last problem, this one belongs to the druid. Druids have such a specific set of principles that players often mistake them for being a free pass to demand that each adventure revolve around their goals. Raiding a dungeon for gold doesn't appeal to the druid mindset, so what are you to do if you play one and are presented with that goal? You improvise. Maybe the gold will enable you to purchase magic items that will let you protect the wilderness. Maybe the ruins contain unnatural monsters that need to be killed regardless of the treasure. Maybe, just maybe, the other PCs are your friends and you are willing to help them just because. Too often that last part is forgotten; I don't think anyone reading this has never spent the night doing something they'd rather not because a friend asked.

So if you're really paying attention, you may be thinking, "Hey, don't those two points contradict one another? First he says to separate what your character thinks from what you think, but then he says your character doesn't have its own reactions." Well, no. Separate your character's thoughts from your own thoughts, but don't forget who is in control of both personalities. The division between your personality and that of your character only goes so far as it helps the game; once it begins becoming a disruption, a player has a responsibility to alter his or her character's decisions in the interest of the group. In the end, your relationships with the people you are sitting in someone's living room with are more important than your character's internal consistency.

[Zarrgon]

I'll go ahead and address the main question

I call this Role Playing vs. Roll Playing. When you role play, your taking on the role of a character in a game with the game rules as just a guide to stop the game from being a free form insanity. When you roll play, your just sitting down to play a game, no different then say Monoploy, and all you do is play by the rules.

In general, a Role Player is more serious about the game and will put tons and tons of time and effort into it. The Roll Player is more causal, they are just playing the game to fill up a couple hours.

Role players are often older and more mature and read books. Roll Players are often younger, immature and endlessly play video games.

And I'd even single out video games as the main reason this split exists. Video games are just so prevalent in our culture. But sadly the 'role-playing video game' is just a poor shadow of a real live role playing game. But people can't always get together and play in a live group. But anyone can buy and play a video game by themselves. And video games, by there very nature are all crunch. Even if a video game bothers with fluff, it's the sort of thing that most video gamers just scroll past. Most video game stories are little more then a joke, as you still must just mindlessly slaughter the world to win.

And then when a video gamer does play a live role playing game, they are just roll playing. They think it should be ''just like a video game''. For example: NPC should randomly tell the player things they want to know(the exact same horrible way video games do it) or that they should ''know everything'' about the game(The same way a video gamer gets the cheat book, and finds out exactly how to do the quest so they can just zone out and do it).

[W3bDragon]

One of the problems of video gamers importing the video game mentality to tabletop gaming is that most RPG video games don't allow the character to meaningfully impact the story no matter what they do. As such, Role Playing in a video game tends to be discouraged by design, because there is nothing to gain. That leaves min-maxing exercises as the only meaningful approach for long term success, whatever that success may be (end game raiding, finishing the game on Hard, etc.)

On the other hand, in most tabletop RPGs, you can and often do impact the story, making Role Playing much more meaningful. That gives you an alternative to playing the numbers game for long term success (surviving, defeating the BBG, becoming a king, etc).

That being said, I feel that, to some degree, this same problem of Roll players vs Role players is often present in video games as well. Just look at a random sampling of players in World of Warcraft and you'll see them running the gamut from hardcore raiders to auction house specialists to achievement freaks to pet collectors to those who's character's gear hasn't changed in 10 months. The hardcore raiders present an example of how to "win the game" as the designers intended, yet not many people are interested in that. Are the rest of the players just doing it wrong?

In truth, it all comes back to individual people's preferred gaming style. People with compatible styles tend to get along together better. Those with clashing styles need a medium that allows for both of their styles to co-exist side by side in order to get along. RPG video games strive to that very goal to accommodate to the largest possible target audience, while tabletop gaming is designed with the expectation that the players will be in agreement over what style of game will be played.

In the end there is no right or wrong way to play. There are just players with compatible styles that can get along gaming together and there are those who's styles clash and should probably just stick to video games if they want to play together.

[Raven777]

In general, a Role Player is more serious about the game and will put tons and tons of time and effort into it. The Roll Player is more causal, they are just playing the game to fill up a couple hours.

I find that I disagree with this characterization. I've seen role-players pour hours into designing their character and then picking classes, feats and spells that adhere to their vision and what they think their character should grow toward. But I have also seen roll-players pour hours into building their character and researching the classes, feats and spells they can get great combos out of and/or that'll make them more versatile/powerful.

I think positive examples of both kinds of player can poor the same amount of dedication into the game. It is once they are dropped into the game world that you see them pulling in different directions. Example : Infernal Healing. Cleric sees it as an evil thing his character wants nowhere near him, Sorcerer sees it as the better, always maximized arcane version of Cure Light Wounds.

[Zubrowka74]

I don't see it as Roleplay vs Roll-play. It could happen between two roleplayers or two roll-players as well.

I stick to this guideline when I start a campaign : don't allow opposite alignments or conflicting character personalities if you're not prepared to deal with the situation. A Paladin and a Thief in the same party is the obvious classic exemple. Going around milling villagers for a profit or fun is not the kind of game that suits everybody. You have to state this at the begining. That's why Evil players weren't allowed originally. There's enough conflict with Chaos vs Law, and even do-gooder Good and unconcerned Neutral.

Also, you never know the player's real intention. Is he playing his character like this because he wants the shiny or is he just being honnest about his roleplay ? Because conflict can arise with both players honnestly playing their respective roles. I find that this is rarely a problem when playing amongst friends.

[ArcturusV]

Or just talking to players before they set down and hashing things out. Why I always go and ask my players for their character sheets before hand so I can peek over it. Yeah, Alignment/Class issues are the ones that come up most often. Sometimes it's something where I'm house ruling away a common issue and I want it made clear (Like removing the Paladin Guilt by Association. That's just begging for intra-party drama). But sometimes it's just clearing out setting/plot stuff that might not fit the characters like knowing you're running a heavy urban intrigue campaign and the guy rolled up a druid with a lot of natural manipulation powers. And getting an idea of what they want in the campaign.

I usually try to hammer into players that Alignment isn't a Strictly Better situation. There's no one alignment that IS better. I also tend to try to clear out some of the alignment defining silliness, like back when Chaotic Neutral was ALWAYS being described as stark raving lunatics incapable of rational thought, or True Neutrals were always zen philosophers concerned with the cosmic balance of powers with every action and adventure they take. And things like; "Just because you're evil, doesn't mean you can't have friends, people you trust, or even like working together with. An evil alignment isn't a blank check to betray the party." Or that a Good Alignment isn't a free check to morally bully people into doing what you think is right and killing anyone who doesn't agree with you.