PDA

View Full Version : DM's Play Style Is Overbearing [Any]



Volos
2014-02-04, 10:18 PM
As a player, I enjoy being the goofball. I come up with ways to do something absurd in game, usually challenging my DM to handle whatever new scheme I come up with on the fly with little to no warning. Luckily I have a DM that can handle my shenanigans most of the time.

My DM spoke to me upon the recruitment for his new campaign, asking that I tone down the goof-ness. I agreed, figuring that I could play a more serious character this time around. I had this grim and gritty vigilante tiefling that I thought would be epic, but also fit into his Urban adventures. But come the third session of him game, everything changes.

Before we were just playing D&D, but now we're being forced to act out or describe everything. It's really restrictive! The way he's always run his games, and the way he was running this one, was fun. He'd run an encounter or a roleplay scene and we'd say things like "I try to Intimidate the merchant to get a better deal." or in combat, "I take a five foot step, draw my weapon as a move action, and make an attack with my bastard sword." Now it's all different.

He's saying we have to describe what we're doing. Which doesn't sound all that bad at first, but he wants us to do it with every single action! So I'm in town and I want to buy some potions, I have to say... "I dress myself for the day and set out, seeking a shop where I might procure some healing potions. I use my familiarity with the city to avoid getting lost or taken in by a less that reputable 'merchant'." Instead of just saying, "I buy some potions of cure light." It's really annoying! There are times when he lets us take shortcuts, but any time we need to take action we have to talk rather then get down to business.

He says he wants us to say WHAT we want to do and HOW we plan to get it done. Even in combat I have to describe my actions. What can I do as a player? He says this is for the betterment of the group, and the other players are going along with it... but I just don't like it. I'm not that good at roleplaying in the first place, much less in combat. I see it as more straightforward, I either swing to hit the guy or I take some other action such as defending myself or casting a spell. I honestly don't see how roleplaying can be applied to combat.

Edit: I lied

I am not the player in the scenario I presented in the OP, but rather the DM of said Roleplay Intensive Campaign. To try and see things the way my player was, I presented the scenario from his position and asked your advice on what to do. This really helped me to understand where he was coming from and how to work things out with him better. Even so, there are aspects of his objections that I still cannot understand, but that is left to be resolved between me and him.

As the DM of the Roleplay Intensive Campaign, I feel that asking for my players to describe all of their actions In Character isn't really all that much to ask. Now It would be silly if I were to ask them to roleplay shopping, leveling up, and other background functions of the game. I haven't nor do I plan to. It was mentioned as it was one of the ways he had pointed out that asking to roleplay could become ridiculous. (He was exaggerating, obviously)

My player has complained that asking him to roleplay during game is asking too much of him, even when it comes to social interactions and strictly story scenes where there isn't anything to do but talk to NPCs or plan with the other PCs. I have asked for descriptions during battle, anything more than "I attack the enemy" is allowed. More interesting descriptions or original ideas using terrain, situational items/events, and/or tricking the enemy into a trap/hurting themselves gains bonuses or special actions otherwise unavailable. (Ex: One can attack and bull rush at the same time, or disarm and trip and opponent in one action rather than taking two turns)

We are working out our differences, but even so he claims that I have demanded too much of him. Hopefully when I present him with some of your ideas (namely, preparing battle descriptions ahead of time which is something I do for my baddies) he'll calm down and realize that being In Character can be very rewarding both story wise and even mechanically wise. I know that his meta-gaming self won't be able to resist gaining bonuses to checks or making multiple attacks/actions a turn. It's all up to me whether his plan grants such bonuses though. And atleast the rules I hold my players to is being applied to myself as well. If I cannot describe the monster's or NPC's action well enough, my players point it out to me. I accept their judgment and give a flat -2 penalty to whatever the monster or NPC was doing.

AMFV
2014-02-04, 10:25 PM
Well it could be that he just wants a different style of play than you do, that sounds like the problem to me, some people want a more heavy and narrative style of play, it doesn't work for everybody though.

It sounds to me, like you want a more loose and free game, with less focus on the IC stuff or at least less enforced focus, since that's an environment that you enjoy. I would bring up with the DM that you aren't enjoying the game anymore and that you'd like to come to some kind of compromise regarding the extensive description. If he isn't then you should probably find a different game, or else reconcile yourself to putting up with this one, really that's where you're at, sadly.

Volos
2014-02-04, 10:34 PM
The thing is that I really do enjoy his game, just not the way he has changed in running it. Before I knew what was expected of me, and what I could get away with. Now I'm not so sure. I was trying to scare off a potential foe, and instead of having me roll Intimidate he decided I was trying to Bluff the enemy. With his new way of running things, we describe our actions and aren't allowed to say anything related to the rules system, then he tells us when and what to roll. So we're left to roleplay and describe our actions as best we can, hoping that he'll let us roll what we want to. The other players aren't having an issue with this, but since I'm playing a gritty grey zone vigilante, some of my actions aren't coming across as I plan. I really want to stay in his game, but I'm not sure how I can get back to enjoying the campaign with his current play style. Should I just talk to him about it frankly and ask him what he's expecting of me?

AMFV
2014-02-04, 10:36 PM
The thing is that I really do enjoy his game, just not the way he has changed in running it. Before I knew what was expected of me, and what I could get away with. Now I'm not so sure. I was trying to scare off a potential foe, and instead of having me roll Intimidate he decided I was trying to Bluff the enemy. With his new way of running things, we describe our actions and aren't allowed to say anything related to the rules system, then he tells us when and what to roll. So we're left to roleplay and describe our actions as best we can, hoping that he'll let us roll what we want to. The other players aren't having an issue with this, but since I'm playing a gritty grey zone vigilante, some of my actions aren't coming across as I plan. I really want to stay in his game, but I'm not sure how I can get back to enjoying the campaign with his current play style. Should I just talk to him about it frankly and ask him what he's expecting of me?


Well that's basically kind of a different style of gameplay, since he's changed gameplay styles then either you need to discuss it with him, since he's not going to change back. Talk to him about it, if he can't fix the issue, then either buckle down or leave, sadly those are your choices.

Red Fel
2014-02-04, 10:37 PM
It also depends on the game. For instance, in a mechanics-oriented game like D&D, the "how" you do something is less important. It's not unimportant, and adding a bit of detail certainly adds to immersion, but at the end of the day, you're buying goods, or you're rolling Intimidate, or you're casting Magic Missile. It's not elaborate.

But there are other games where the "how" does matter. For instance, in Exalted, by describing your actions - any action, no matter how mundane - in an awesome or badass way, you gain various bonuses. This incentivizes are more detailed, narrative style of gameplay.

It's possible that the DM in your game is trying to switch to a more narrative style. And it sounds like you're not a fan - at least, not without incentives. I would suggest, as AMFV does, talking to your DM. Figure out what he wants and why he wants it, and if it's something you're comfortable providing. Figure out if there's a better way for him to incentivize it than to simply say, "No, give me more details!"

As an aside, roleplaying can easily be applied to combat. Go watch an anime. Any anime. It really doesn't matter. Watch the part where the protagonist confronts a rival, and gives a long speech about love and justice and the power of friendship, about how his blood boils and his hand burns and the truth will prevail and he will right wrongs and triumph over evil. Watch the part where he stares the enemy down, sword at his side, in a crouch, and suddenly both lunge simultaneously, landing behind one another, standing silently for a moment before one of them falls over, sliced in half. Or where lights surge from his outstretched fist, the silhouettes of despairing souls rushing and roaring outwards, surrounding his foe before devouring them whole. And so on and so forth. If he really, really wants combat RP'd, ham it up until he chokes on it.

Cristo Meyers
2014-02-04, 10:40 PM
Well that's basically kind of a different style of gameplay, since he's changed gameplay styles then either you need to discuss it with him, since he's not going to change back. Talk to him about it, if he can't fix the issue, then either buckle down or leave, sadly those are your choices.

Agreed. This is probably time to sit down and have a discussion about what's going on. At least then you'll have all the facts to make a decision.

Heck, it sounds like they're decided you're playing FATE instead of DnD. What Volos has described sounds a lot like a Dresden Files/FATE style of game.

Jay R
2014-02-04, 11:50 PM
Even in combat I have to describe my actions.

"OK. Standing in Di Grassi's broad ward, with my right foot forward, I void his attack with a slope pass to my right (his left), executing an atajo cambrio, setting up a tondo reverso with the back edge of the sword. I complete the pass with a compass step to put my left foot back behind me in the new orientation."

[I've just mixed three mutually incompatible fencing systems.]

There are other ways to kill a cat than by smothering it in cream, but it is often the best way.

Prince Raven
2014-02-05, 12:45 AM
I don't see the problem here, your DM is asking you to roleplay in a roleplaying game, that seems pretty reasonable to me.

AMFV
2014-02-05, 12:48 AM
I don't see the problem here, your DM is asking you to roleplay in a roleplaying game, that seems pretty reasonable to me.

He's asking him to act, which is not necessarily tantamount to roleplaying. Just because somebody isn't as good at narrative description or isn't as good at acting doesn't mean that he should be penalized in his ability to roleplay. Now there can be games where that is a common aspect. But if he's not having fun then he should discuss this with the DM. Since it's not an aspect equally in most systems or games.

Rhynn
2014-02-05, 12:53 AM
Your GM had a decent idea ("get them more involved through roleplay!") but put it into practice really badly. Long descriptions are not inherently better or worthier than short ones, and the real way to create involvement is to hook the players into the setting and the events and the characters, not to mandate unnecessarily wordy descriptions. Your group needs to have a discussion about this, and if y'all don't come to a consensus that will make for a fun game for you, you should walk and find a game that does work for you.


He's asking him to act, which is not necessarily tantamount to roleplaying. Just because somebody isn't as good at narrative description or isn't as good at acting doesn't mean that he should be penalized in his ability to roleplay. Now there can be games where that is a common aspect. But if he's not having fun then he should discuss this with the DM. Since it's not an aspect equally in most systems or games.

Yes, yes, yes.

Acting around a table is not the same as roleplaying. Roleplaying is about making decisions, to me. Acting is optional and unnecessary. A lot of people get a kick out of it, but it's very rarely done at all at my table, for instance, and my players are still plenty involved in the game, the characters, and the setting, when they're presented well.

Driderman
2014-02-05, 03:52 AM
If this is a new thing I'd suggest rolling with it for the time being and see if you don't gradually get to a point where found a common middle way.

Honestly, my first thought was "you don't know how good you got it!" because that sounds like a GM who's invested in his game and wants his players to be as well.

inexorabletruth
2014-02-05, 04:27 AM
It could just be an RP experiment. Every now and then I take my players through RP experiments to see if something is a hit. Sometimes they love it, sometimes they hate it, sometimes I hate it, which has resulted in many amusing anecdotes. I say humor him for about 5 sessions.

If it's still not working out after you've given it your best shot, then you've learned that you're not a deep immersion RP guy. Talk to him about it and see if you can opt out of the heavy RP and go back to doing what you do best.

If he won't budge and you still want to play, then try pre-writing some scripts for things you do, and just reading them back when the time is appropriate.

Write up like three attack scripts, three haggling scripts, and maybe three stealth scripts. Examples to follow:

Attack: Sweeping high and spinning low to catch the [opponent] off his guard, I swing my [weapon] out wide, drawing a straight, silvery line across the [opponents] midsection.
Haggle: I lean in conspiratorially and whisper, "There is a rumor going around that you have the best [items] in town. I wish to procure something for myself, if the price is fair enough…"
Sneak: Tiptoeing through the dark [area] I peer around the corner to make sure the [adjoining area] is clear of lookers-on.


These scripts won't serve every purpose, but it might help in a pinch if your creative juices are running dry. I did something like this in a game where the DM insisted we describe everything like we were award winning novel writers too. The pressure and social awkwardness made me clam up, so having a few emergency scripts lying around to help me describe how my character shot an arrow for the thousandth time in his campaign helped a lot.

Prince Raven
2014-02-05, 04:33 AM
"Don't worry my lady, I will be here to catch you"
"You have my full confidence, brave sir" [Lady Damsel drops from the ledge, you catch her and gently lower her to the ground]

Is a lot more engaging than

"Diplomacy to get her to jump, 15"
"You succeed, she drops from the ledge, roll plus strength to catch her"
"16"
"You catch her"

Sith_Happens
2014-02-05, 04:35 AM
If he really, really wants combat RP'd, ham it up until he chokes on it.

I was going to briefly comment on the ridiculousness of the scenario and then second the actually helpful advice... But then this.

Repeat after me:
THIS HAND OF MINE GLOWS WITH AN AWESOME POWER!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFo0_nYPLmQ#t=00m45s)

Prince Raven
2014-02-05, 05:11 AM
Dude, if I had an attack that took something like 11 combat rounds to prepare, you bet I'd ham it up.

Volos
2014-02-05, 05:16 AM
Well he is giving us bonuses if we describe our actions in either a cool or story appropriate way. I've talked to him via facebook last night, and he said that he basically started doing this style of DMing since most of us were meta-gaming too much. He felt that we were thinking too much about the system and less about the story. We're running through an adventure path, so I can see where he is coming from.

I myself am a huge culprit of meta-gaming my way out of most every situation. Pit me against a human opponent, and I can't help but think... I have a +15 to Intimidate, he couldn't have more than 5HD, and I'm 3rd level. If I drink this potion of Enlarge Person, that's another +4 to my check. So yeah, I'll stop listening to those noises coming out of his mouth (Story Dialog) and make my check without asking the DM if I'm allowed or if its my turn.

My DM says he wants us to roleplay and come up with new and interesting actions both inside and outside of combat to make the game more fun and more story orientated. He showed me an example of a combat scenario where we'd be fighting in a manor per-se. If I wanted to cut the chandelier rope and ride it to the top to charge the BBEG while simultaneously crushing anyone under the chandelier, I'd make an appropriate skill check as determined by him, and then I'd not only get a cool charge (with maybe a free bull rush) but also I'd get 'trap' damage on the foes below based on a function of my level crossed with my skill check total.

It seems really complicated, but since all we have to do is describe ourselves and he does the math, it should be fine I guess. I can see where he wants to make the game more engaging, but I still get caught up with on the spot roleplay. So what should I do to be more prepared to roleplay both inside and outside of combat?

Driderman
2014-02-05, 05:33 AM
Well he is giving us bonuses if we describe our actions in either a cool or story appropriate way. I've talked to him via facebook last night, and he said that he basically started doing this style of DMing since most of us were meta-gaming too much. He felt that we were thinking too much about the system and less about the story. We're running through an adventure path, so I can see where he is coming from.

I myself am a huge culprit of meta-gaming my way out of most every situation. Pit me against a human opponent, and I can't help but think... I have a +15 to Intimidate, he couldn't have more than 5HD, and I'm 3rd level. If I drink this potion of Enlarge Person, that's another +4 to my check. So yeah, I'll stop listening to those noises coming out of his mouth (Story Dialog) and make my check without asking the DM if I'm allowed or if its my turn.

My DM says he wants us to roleplay and come up with new and interesting actions both inside and outside of combat to make the game more fun and more story orientated. He showed me an example of a combat scenario where we'd be fighting in a manor per-se. If I wanted to cut the chandelier rope and ride it to the top to charge the BBEG while simultaneously crushing anyone under the chandelier, I'd make an appropriate skill check as determined by him, and then I'd not only get a cool charge (with maybe a free bull rush) but also I'd get 'trap' damage on the foes below based on a function of my level crossed with my skill check total.

It seems really complicated, but since all we have to do is describe ourselves and he does the math, it should be fine I guess. I can see where he wants to make the game more engaging, but I still get caught up with on the spot roleplay. So what should I do to be more prepared to roleplay both inside and outside of combat?

First of all, maybe you should consider switching to another system because while your DMs great idea is doable in D&D, it's a lot easier to manage in other, lighter systems that doesn't encourage it's players to "computer-game" the system rather than roleplay it.

Secondly, don't worry about being on-the-spot. I know it can be difficult, I'm sure we've all had that social anxiety one time or another when faced with a spontaneous RP scene, but try to get into the spirit of things and it will soon become a lot easier.
Besides, all these guys are your friends right? They'll be in the same position and they won't think badly of you if you don't pull off every scene perfectly so don't worry, it's just a game after all.

Thirdly, try to think about awesome lines or actions that your character could say or do, in terms of description and not mechanics, while outside the game. Write something down, maybe even make a short story that highlights aspects of your character you can use to better determine how and why he acts as he does, if you're so inclined.
I find that RP'ing a character is difficult if you mainly think of the character in terms of his mechanical traits, once you forego those concerns in favor of thinking of the character as a person, it becomes a lot easier to roleplay him since you'll have an instinctive grasp of how the character would react in a given situation, instead of having to assess it like a tactical board-or-computer game scenario.

Prince Raven
2014-02-05, 05:49 AM
With all seriousness, have you considered doing some pre-session improv exercises?

It's also useful to stay in character. Constantly switching betwen IC and OOC makes it difficult to stay immersed and requires you to mentally re-engage with your character once you're put on the spot.

Kane0
2014-02-05, 05:51 AM
Pick one word, action, etc to really overdo and drive home. Each session, every session. It will either establish a default state for your character, annoy the hell out of the DM or be hilarious. Possibly all of the above.

For example, in our group that word is 'cautiously'. Should anyone use that word any and all other people at the table are permitted (nay, obligated) to give the DM ideas on the horrible, spontaneous fate of the accused.

valadil
2014-02-05, 06:46 AM
I've seen other GMs try this. Some have more success than others. In my opinion your GM is taking it too far.

I really like fleshing out the details of a social interaction. You can't just push the diplomacy button to make the guards go away. Come up with a couple sentences and use the skill to see the effect they have.

Going into detail on shopping is unnecessary though. I get that he wants to immerse you in the game but I don't think it's actually buying you anything. Skip the mundane tasks, especially if they're frustrating, and do some RP where it matters instead.

I also think part of the problem is the system. I'm not going to tell you you can't RP with DnD. Rather your familiarity with the system is problematic. You know what your skills do and you want to activate them. You know what cure light wound does and what it costs. If you didn't have that knowledge, walking into a shop and trying to figure out which healing potion was right for you wouldn't be so tedious. If you didn't know the difference between bluff and intimidate you'd say what you want to say and the GM would tell you what to roll. You wouldn't have this problem of knowing the system, pretending you don't and then getting frustrated when the GM's interpretation of your actions don't match your goals.

Driderman
2014-02-05, 07:16 AM
I also think part of the problem is the system. I'm not going to tell you you can't RP with DnD. Rather your familiarity with the system is problematic. You know what your skills do and you want to activate them. You know what cure light wound does and what it costs. If you didn't have that knowledge, walking into a shop and trying to figure out which healing potion was right for you wouldn't be so tedious. If you didn't know the difference between bluff and intimidate you'd say what you want to say and the GM would tell you what to roll. You wouldn't have this problem of knowing the system, pretending you don't and then getting frustrated when the GM's interpretation of your actions don't match your goals.

I don't think the issue is so much that he knows how the system works, but rather than his group have been taught/taught themselves to play mechanically rather than roleplaying as such. It's an easy trap to fall into with many systems, but D&D in particularl seems to encourage this.

As I see it, it becomes a problem when the players are playing the system rather than the story. Instead of running with what the GM says is appropriate, the game turns into an exercise in knowing the system and suddenly the players get all sorts of assumptions about how the world is supposed to react to their actions. Instead of using roleplaying to influence a guard, it becomes a matter of the player assuming that their level X of social influencing skill will do the work for them. As such, the game system actually replaces the GM in terms of who dictates the rules of the game, which is also what spawns rules debates often.

Sith_Happens
2014-02-05, 07:26 AM
Dude, if I had an attack that took something like 11 combat rounds to prepare, you bet I'd ham it up.

Don't be silly, everyone knows transforming and flourishing are both free actions.:smalltongue:

Spore
2014-02-05, 07:30 AM
Pick one word, action, etc to really overdo and drive home. Each session, every session. It will either establish a default state for your character, annoy the hell out of the DM or be hilarious. Possibly all of the above.

For example, in our group that word is 'cautiously'. Should anyone use that word any and all other people at the table are permitted (nay, obligated) to give the DM ideas on the horrible, spontaneous fate of the accused.

http://abload.de/img/38940906desrv.gif

I am sorry this is childish and immature.

Please try it out before you judge it. Roleplaying out buying potions isn't something to fill an hour with but you could spare five minutes of your time doing it, don't you? Maybe you get a discount on them too for convincing Diplomacy. But I agree, playing out every minor detail is tedious.

AMFV
2014-02-05, 08:05 AM
Well he is giving us bonuses if we describe our actions in either a cool or story appropriate way. I've talked to him via facebook last night, and he said that he basically started doing this style of DMing since most of us were meta-gaming too much. He felt that we were thinking too much about the system and less about the story. We're running through an adventure path, so I can see where he is coming from.

I myself am a huge culprit of meta-gaming my way out of most every situation. Pit me against a human opponent, and I can't help but think... I have a +15 to Intimidate, he couldn't have more than 5HD, and I'm 3rd level. If I drink this potion of Enlarge Person, that's another +4 to my check. So yeah, I'll stop listening to those noises coming out of his mouth (Story Dialog) and make my check without asking the DM if I'm allowed or if its my turn.

My DM says he wants us to roleplay and come up with new and interesting actions both inside and outside of combat to make the game more fun and more story orientated. He showed me an example of a combat scenario where we'd be fighting in a manor per-se. If I wanted to cut the chandelier rope and ride it to the top to charge the BBEG while simultaneously crushing anyone under the chandelier, I'd make an appropriate skill check as determined by him, and then I'd not only get a cool charge (with maybe a free bull rush) but also I'd get 'trap' damage on the foes below based on a function of my level crossed with my skill check total.

It seems really complicated, but since all we have to do is describe ourselves and he does the math, it should be fine I guess. I can see where he wants to make the game more engaging, but I still get caught up with on the spot roleplay. So what should I do to be more prepared to roleplay both inside and outside of combat?

Well if your problem is shyness or not being able to put ideas into words, you could actually try a small amount of alcohol. I know it sounds terrible, but a small buzz will help with getting rid of some social fear and that will assist you in being able to roleplay more easily. Also then you won't be as nervous when you're on the spot. Naturally being plastered is not productive to a good game, but that's neither here nor there, if you can moderate, having a light buzz may really help you. Of course whether or not that's feasible depends on your age and your opinions regarding alcohol. I've found that a few beers really lowers my nervousness as far as roleplaying goes though.

Mastikator
2014-02-05, 08:15 AM
[snip]

Acting around a table is not the same as roleplaying. Roleplaying is about making decisions, to me. Acting is optional and unnecessary. A lot of people get a kick out of it, but it's very rarely done at all at my table, for instance, and my players are still plenty involved in the game, the characters, and the setting, when they're presented well.
Gotta disagree with this. To me roleplaying is acting without a script, whenever you aren't in character you're not roleplaying. Making decisions is a part of creating the story, but it's not a part of making your character. If you don't speak in character to the other players while they are in characters. And it IS important that you do "funny voices", communication is 80% non-verbal, this is why you get much much more out of roleplaying if you roleplay the mannerisms and accent and everything. Anything less and the other players are only getting a very vague idea of what your character is like.

I'm not saying you can't half-ass it if that's more fun to you, fun is the goal after all. But you are half-assing it.

Now I do agree that the DMs execution of ramping up the roleplaying level is not that great, IMO describing your actions shouldn't be the main focus, unnecessary details are ok to omit. But saying "I buy a potion of cure light wounds" isn't roleplaying, you just missed the part where you talk to the shop keeper, the small talk where the DM gives you a feel of what the town is like.

Red Fel
2014-02-05, 08:21 AM
I was going to briefly comment on the ridiculousness of the scenario and then second the actually helpful advice... But then this.

Repeat after me:
THIS HAND OF MINE GLOWS WITH AN AWESOME POWER!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFo0_nYPLmQ#t=00m45s)

Oh, you've been in my latest build thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=328610), have you?

In all seriousness, though, it's very hard to maintain a gritty tone - usually known for understated acts or monotones - and still ramp up the acting. Ask your DM if you can lapse back into a lighter character, and in exchange you'll try harder to act out your actions.

Frankly, hamming it up a little can be fun, if you're ready and able to have fun with it.

AMFV
2014-02-05, 08:26 AM
Gotta disagree with this. To me roleplaying is acting without a script, whenever you aren't in character you're not roleplaying. Making decisions is a part of creating the story, but it's not a part of making your character. If you don't speak in character to the other players while they are in characters. And it IS important that you do "funny voices", communication is 80% non-verbal, this is why you get much much more out of roleplaying if you roleplay the mannerisms and accent and everything. Anything less and the other players are only getting a very vague idea of what your character is like.

I'm not saying you can't half-ass it if that's more fun to you, fun is the goal after all. But you are half-assing it.

Now I do agree that the DMs execution of ramping up the roleplaying level is not that great, IMO describing your actions shouldn't be the main focus, unnecessary details are ok to omit. But saying "I buy a potion of cure light wounds" isn't roleplaying, you just missed the part where you talk to the shop keeper, the small talk where the DM gives you a feel of what the town is like.

Well that depends, for certain people and in certain systems that style of roleplaying is okay, but it's definitely not the only way to roleplay. I wouldn't call anything else "half-assing" certainly, since there are many different ways to become involved in the 'role' aspect of your character, from motivations and long term goals, to minutae, that do not require extensive acting. Acting is not a skill everybody possess, and while it is okay to have a game with a heavy focus on that (just as it's okay to have a game with a heavy focus on math, or a game with a heavy focus on strategy), it's not the "best roleplaying" way.

Mastikator
2014-02-05, 08:33 AM
Well that depends, for certain people and in certain systems that style of roleplaying is okay, but it's definitely not the only way to roleplay. I wouldn't call anything else "half-assing" certainly, since there are many different ways to become involved in the 'role' aspect of your character, from motivations and long term goals, to minutae, that do not require extensive acting. Acting is not a skill everybody possess, and while it is okay to have a game with a heavy focus on that (just as it's okay to have a game with a heavy focus on math, or a game with a heavy focus on strategy), it's not the "best roleplaying" way.

Actually it is. Everyone played pretend when they were a kid. Those of us who've larped can tell you that *everyone* can roleplay, you don't have to be good at it. IMO doing it poorly is better than not doing it at all. Merely not breaking character is above average.

A game that is heavy focused on math or strategy is probably a wargame (or action/adventure game) with some aspects of roleplaying added. It can still be a wargame if you only control one character.

AMFV
2014-02-05, 08:37 AM
Actually it is. Everyone played pretend when they were a kid. Those of us who've larped can tell you that *everyone* can roleplay, you don't have to be good at it. IMO doing it poorly is better than not doing it at all. Merely not breaking character is above average.

A game that is heavy focused on math or strategy is probably a wargame (or action/adventure game) with some aspects of roleplaying added. It can still be a wargame if you only control one character.

That's not necessarily the case, those are aspects present in many roleplaying games, so if I find the math more fun and I introduce houserules to turn it up to 11. As this DM did with roleplaying, am I wrong? I don't think so. It's just a different style of game, and it won't appeal to everybody.

For some people, roleplaying is incredibly frustrating and difficult, which is why that should be something that shouldn't necessarily be a requirement for everybody. Many people did not play pretend in the fashion that you're describing, or as they grew up they stopped enjoying it. It is possible to get into a character or have emotional involvement in the game, without acting, now that's a different style of game, but neither really is better or worse. To my mind, bad roleplaying and no roleplaying at all are tantamount to the same thing, with bad roleplaying being slightly worse because it sucks up so much time, which is a scarce resource. Now I love me some good roleplaying, and I love immersive games, but it's not everybody's cup of tea, and I recognize that.

Mastikator
2014-02-05, 08:43 AM
So instead of accepting that roleplaying isn't for everyone we water the definition down to the point where roleplaying is virtually a meaningless word just so people who like to play war games, board games and strategy games can be said to play roleplaying games?

AMFV
2014-02-05, 08:47 AM
So instead of accepting that roleplaying isn't for everyone we water the definition down to the point where roleplaying is virtually a meaningless word just so people who like to play war games, board games and strategy games can be said to play roleplaying games?

They don't, unless those games involve taking on a role.



Definition of ROLE-PLAY
transitive verb
1
: to act out the role of
2
: to represent in action <students were asked to role–play the thoughts and feelings of each character — R. G. Lambert>

While definition 1 is similar to what you are describing, definition does not necessarily require an acting component, if you are representing the thoughts and feelings of somebody that is not yourself, you are roleplaying, even if you cannot imagine how that person would talk, or narrativize that person. The ability to act and narrate are not tantamount to the most important skills in roleplaying, the ability to understand another's point of view, which is fundamentally the most important point.

Mastikator
2014-02-05, 08:52 AM
Going by definition 2:
Then roleplaying is still more than just making decisions. You can't represent in actions of a character that who's mind is not defined. If you're roleplaying "Grogan the barbarian" and you say "I buy a potion of healing", then it necessarily needs to be because Grogan wants the potion. Otherwise you're just being yourself.

AMFV
2014-02-05, 08:57 AM
Going by definition 2:
Then roleplaying is still more than just making decisions. You can't represent in actions of a character that who's mind is not defined. If you're roleplaying "Grogan the barbarian" and you say "I buy a potion of healing", then it necessarily needs to be because Grogan wants the potion. Otherwise you're just being yourself.

Why wouldn't Grogan want the potion, and why does the character need to abdicate the purchasing of sundries, I don't describe what my characters had for dinner if it's not story-relevant, and authors frequently omit irrelevant details. The character of Grogan, doesn't really care that much about shopping, so it's not a defining character moment or something that the character is really going to care about beyond buying the potion, for example, I buy light bulbs whenever I need them, but I have no moral feelings about it, no emotional response to it, it's not an opportunity for me to grow as a person. Now if we had a character who was very into shopping and that was a fundamental part of their characterization, then this would not be for them a waste of time, but for Grogan, it is, and worse still it's forcing the player to act out something that really doesn't matter to his character. To say "I walk to the store and buy a potion," is tantamount to me saying "I drive to the store and buy a light bulb," no strong feelings around it either way.

Lord Torath
2014-02-05, 09:06 AM
...try pre-writing some scripts for things you do, and just reading them back when the time is appropriate.

Write up like three attack scripts, three haggling scripts, and maybe three stealth scripts. Examples to follow:

Attack: Sweeping high and spinning low to catch the [opponent] off his guard, I swing my [weapon] out wide, drawing a straight, silvery line across the [opponents] midsection.
Haggle: I lean in conspiratorially and whisper, "There is a rumor going around that you have the best [items] in town. I wish to procure something for myself, if the price is fair enough…"
Sneak: Tiptoeing through the dark [area] I peer around the corner to make sure the [adjoining area] is clear of lookers-on.


These scripts won't serve every purpose, but it might help in a pinch if your creative juices are running dry. I did something like this in a game where the DM insisted we describe everything like we were award winning novel writers too. The pressure and social awkwardness made me clam up, so having a few emergency scripts lying around to help me describe how my character shot an arrow for the thousandth time in his campaign helped a lot.This sounds like a really good thing to try out. Get some basic scripts ready. Using them will help build your confidence, and could help you ad lib in unusual situations, like the Chandelier described before.

Best of luck! And let us know how it turns out! :smallsmile:

Prince Raven
2014-02-05, 09:39 AM
This all seems to me like the DM has got fed up with his players and decided to enact this playstyle in order to encourage some actual roleplaying. Now it's probably not the best way to go about encouraging roleplaying, but maybe he felt enforcing it to this degree was the only way. What I would do, in your position, is to discuss the matter with the DM and agree to come to some sort of compromise like reasonable adults.

I certainly wouldn't accept "I try to Intimidate the merchant to get a better deal." I think it's fairly reasonable to expect players to make the effort to describe what they're doing to intimidate the merchant.

valadil
2014-02-05, 10:41 AM
I don't think the issue is so much that he knows how the system works, but rather than his group have been taught/taught themselves to play mechanically rather than roleplaying as such. It's an easy trap to fall into with many systems, but D&D in particularl seems to encourage this.


Oh yeah that's definitely a factor too. I'm of the opinion that it's easier to switch systems than to retrain players conditioned to playing a system one particular way. My group didn't RP much in DnD and MERP until we played WoD with a GM who pushed harder for RP.

Knaight
2014-02-05, 12:05 PM
In this particular case, it sounds like it might be worth pointing out that purple prose is a prominent problem in a lot of bad writing, and that the length of a description and the quality of a description are two different things.

Sith_Happens
2014-02-05, 12:09 PM
Oh, you've been in my latest build thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=328610), have you?

Actually I found the video about a month ago while trawling for campaign music and have been watching it about twice a day since. Your thread was extremely amusing as a result.

Red Fel
2014-02-05, 12:50 PM
Actually I found the video about a month ago while trawling for campaign music and have been watching it about twice a day since. Your thread was extremely amusing as a result.

Always a service to be of pleasure. :smallwink:

Volos
2014-02-05, 02:25 PM
I lied.

I am not the player in the scenario I presented in the OP, but rather the DM of said Roleplay Intensive Campaign. To try and see things the way my player was, I presented the scenario from his position and asked your advice on what to do. This really helped me to understand where he was coming from and how to work things out with him better. Even so, there are aspects of his objections that I still cannot understand, but that is left to be resolved between me and him.

As the DM of the Roleplay Intensive Campaign, I feel that asking for my players to describe all of their actions In Character isn't really all that much to ask. Now It would be silly if I were to ask them to roleplay shopping, leveling up, and other background functions of the game. I haven't nor do I plan to. It was mentioned as it was one of the ways he had pointed out that asking to roleplay could become ridiculous. (He was exaggerating, obviously)

My player has complained that asking him to roleplay during game is asking too much of him, even when it comes to social interactions and strictly story scenes where there isn't anything to do but talk to NPCs or plan with the other PCs. I have asked for descriptions during battle, anything more than "I attack the enemy" is allowed. More interesting descriptions or original ideas using terrain, situational items/events, and/or tricking the enemy into a trap/hurting themselves gains bonuses or special actions otherwise unavailable. (Ex: One can attack and bull rush at the same time, or disarm and trip and opponent in one action rather than taking two turns)

We are working out our differences, but even so he claims that I have demanded too much of him. Hopefully when I present him with some of your ideas (namely, preparing battle descriptions ahead of time which is something I do for my baddies) he'll calm down and realize that being In Character can be very rewarding both story wise and even mechanically wise. I know that his meta-gaming self won't be able to resist gaining bonuses to checks or making multiple attacks/actions a turn. It's all up to me whether his plan grants such bonuses though. And atleast the rules I hold my players to is being applied to myself as well. If I cannot describe the monster's or NPC's action well enough, my players point it out to me. I accept their judgment and give a flat -2 penalty to whatever the monster or NPC was doing.

Rhynn
2014-02-05, 02:29 PM
The main problem with describing combat: anyone without a solid background in martial arts and/or HEMA is going to describe stupid stuff they saw in a movie/game that wouldn't work in a million years. Conversely, anyone with that background describing things won't make sense or sound plausible to a GM without that background.

inexorabletruth
2014-02-05, 02:43 PM
I lied. -snip-

Ok, but that does change the advice a bit. If you want to encourage role-play then reward it. Things get awkward around the table sometimes and bad RP could be a result of shyness or inexperience.

When someone puts in the effort, note it. Then at the end of a session, reward that player with RPXP. Don't make a huge show of it, just shoot them a text or hand them a slip of paper with, "Hey, that time you described leaping out of that tree to bury your axe into the hobgoblin's head--epic. Thanks for really getting into the game. :smallsmile: Add 100 RPXP to your character sheet."

Also, if they do something particularly clever/thematic in a session that makes an encounter fun, add a +1 or +2 bonus to the result. Announce that publicly. "Hey, that's a cool idea! You gain a +2 to your roll for throwing the [other character] off guard."

You'll catch more flies with honey when it comes to getting players out of their shell. Punishing players because they aren't descriptive will just make players feel awkward. Rewarding them for their efforts will (more often than not) bring them out of their shell. Even a meta-gamer can realize the inherent bonus of role-play if it can be quantified in bonuses and RPXP.

Airk
2014-02-05, 02:54 PM
The main problem with describing combat: anyone without a solid background in martial arts and/or HEMA is going to describe stupid stuff they saw in a movie/game that wouldn't work in a million years. Conversely, anyone with that background describing things won't make sense or sound plausible to a GM without that background.

This is a non-issue in most groups, because even amoung people who have studied martial arts (Already a distant minority), most of them didn't study anything about how to use a sword and shield against a living pillar of fire. ;)

Unless you are running a very gritty, realistic game, this shouldn't be an obstacle. Even if you are, you should learn not to sweat the details too much - the description is there for flavor, not for determining whether the action works or not, because, you know, the fighter who's been using that sword and shield for ten levels now knows a ton more about it than even the HEMA enthusiast.

AMFV
2014-02-05, 03:02 PM
I lied...

Are you willing to accept that the player may not enjoy the kind of game you're tying for? Because that sounds like the case. You can cry that he's metagaming all you want, but it sounds to me like the numbers game is his favorite part, if you discourage that, then he probably will have less fun, I suggest a compromise with him in that regard. Allow him some social shyness, allow him to be not in-character all the time, let the stress off him a little. It sounds like you tried to manage the transition very quickly and harshly, maybe you should pull back and try to work with him more slowly, and be aware that he may never enjoy the kind of game that you are now wanting to run, and if you're not prepared to compromise, he may not have fun with it at all.


This is a non-issue in most groups, because even amoung people who have studied martial arts (Already a distant minority), most of them didn't study anything about how to use a sword and shield against a living pillar of fire. ;)

Unless you are running a very gritty, realistic game, this shouldn't be an obstacle. Even if you are, you should learn not to sweat the details too much - the description is there for flavor, not for determining whether the action works or not, because, you know, the fighter who's been using that sword and shield for ten levels now knows a ton more about it than even the HEMA enthusiast.


That depends, sometimes sweating the details can be fun, and some of those folks might have the relevant experience. For example I've played games with Marines who have combat experience, so... that would follow that they probably have about as much experience as your fighter might. Now it's a necessary abstraction, but sweating the small stuff and how important that is, varies from group to group.

Airk
2014-02-05, 03:07 PM
Are you willing to accept that the player may not enjoy the kind of game you're tying for? Because that sounds like the case. You can cry that he's metagaming all you want, but it sounds to me like the numbers game is his favorite part, if you discourage that, then he probably will have less fun, I suggest a compromise with him in that regard. Allow him some social shyness, allow him to be not in-character all the time, let the stress off him a little. It sounds like you tried to manage the transition very quickly and harshly, maybe you should pull back and try to work with him more slowly, and be aware that he may never enjoy the kind of game that you are now wanting to run, and if you're not prepared to compromise, he may not have fun with it at all.

Actually, I think you're advocating for the wrong side here. Right now, it seems the GM is asking this guy to meet him halfway, and the player is dragging his feet at even the most reasonable asks.

Because if you didn't read the "I Lied" post thoroughly, it points out that he's NOT actually asking for most of what was suggested in the original post.

AMFV
2014-02-05, 03:13 PM
Actually, I think you're advocating for the wrong side here. Right now, it seems the GM is asking this guy to meet him halfway, and the player is dragging his feet at even the most reasonable asks.

Because if you didn't read the "I Lied" post thoroughly, it points out that he's NOT actually asking for most of what was suggested in the original post.

I read it, the point is that it is still a drastic style change, and the player may not enjoy it. That's just how that is, I'm not saying that the DM shouldn't make the change or try to play a game in a way that he enjoys. I'm saying that the player may never really get into it as much as he was previously, he may enjoy that style of play less.

I'm advocating for both sides, and just trying to make sure that the DM is aware that the player may not ever see the light or enjoy the style of game he wants, he may not be a good fit, this happens from time to time.

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-02-05, 03:14 PM
I gotta hand it to you...that was a brilliant plot twist.

As the DM, you have some extra techniques at your disposal. This is definitely a good idea, but executed with a bit of over-zealousness. So here's two bits of advice to follow.

Character traits. Even if you don't mechanically support it, telling players to write down 2-3 one-word character traits goes a long way towards reminding them that their characters are fleshed-out. Even if they don't try and play it up, that can influence their play.

Ask questions, build on the answers. This is a much better approach than imposing requirements on them. If they're going to buy a potion? Ask them what the name of the potion-shop is, if they already know the merchant, if the merchant has a name. If they're going to come back to the town later, it makes great ground to build on.

Most importantly, it's not about eliciting all the details you can, but about achieving the right details. Sometimes, it's not about describing something, it's about the little bits of color that you add in your description. Prompting the players for specific bits of detail is much more successful at eliciting the color that you want.

So, I'd say to ease off a bit, especially with the requirements, and approach the players proactively during the game.

Mastikator
2014-02-05, 03:18 PM
I lied.

[snip] I feel that asking for my players to describe all of their actions In Character isn't really all that much to ask. [snip]
I completely agree. now whether that means you're in the wrong is for history to decide :P
As others have said, give rewards for roleplaying, and give rewards for trying, you can't demand that they are awesome all the time, but you can demand that they give it a shot.
One thing I've seen that has always been successful is copious amounts of roleplaying experience points, you could lower the non-roleplay experience to some degree to compensate, but if they try: That's an extra 50% exp, if they do voices: that's another extra 50% exp, if they stay consistently in character for the whole duration then that ought to be a whooping 100% bonus exp.
Make sure you mention it, take note of the details and say it when you dish out the exp, make sure everyone knows in advance even. Make sure the player that isn't perfectly ok with this newer higher standard sees that his friends is getting significantly higher rewards for just giving it a shot.
Roleplaying isn't nearly as hard as people make it out to be.

Comet
2014-02-05, 03:31 PM
What works for me is really getting into that description and prose as a GM but knowing when to shut up so the players can jump in as well. The excitement is contagious, I would think.

Also, we do deal out roleplaying XP but it's always handed out between the players themselves. I feel really uncomfortable handing out such subjective rewards from any perceived position of authority. So RP XP is more of a tool for the players themselves to pat each other on the back and build that group momentum that preferably leads into proper roleplaying one-upmanship by the end.

Also, make the world such that interacting with it and getting something nice out of it actually requires going into more depth than "I use [x]". The suggestion about giving them a chance of getting their potions for cheaper if they get to know the shopkeeper is good, I think.

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-02-05, 03:36 PM
What works for me is really getting into that description and prose as a GM but knowing when to shut up so the players can jump in as well. The excitement is contagious, I would think.

Also, we do deal out roleplaying XP but it's always handed out between the players themselves. I feel really uncomfortable handing out such subjective rewards from any perceived position of authority. So RP XP is more of a tool for the players themselves to pat each other on the back and build that group momentum that preferably leads into proper roleplaying one-upmanship by the end.

Also, make the world such that interacting with it and getting something nice out of it actually requires going into more depth than "I use [x]". The suggestion about giving them a chance of getting their potions for cheaper if they get to know the shopkeeper is good, I think.
Three awesome thoughts! I love the second one in particular; it's found in a few different games already, even! (Tenra Bansho Zero, Old School Hack, Golden Sky Stories, and Chuubo's Marvelous Wish-Granting Engine) It winds up working really well because it focuses on the social dynamic around the table, and on being a well-rounded entertainer: you get rewarded not for playing to entertain the GM, but for playing to entertain everyone at the table! It doesn't even have to be an XP reward; you can use "bennies" that can be spent to give a small, in-game bonus like a reroll of a die.

kyoryu
2014-02-05, 06:27 PM
You're describing a lot of the difference between a fiction-first approach to roleplaying, and a mechanics-first (neither of which should be considered a pejorative, or an accusation of "rollplaying").

With a mechanics-first approach, you decide on the mechanics you want to use, and then roll the dice. You then apply that result to the "world".

With a fiction-first approach, you decide what you're going to do, figure out how to apply the mechanics, and then roll the dice.

They seem similar, but whether you start with the rules and the stuff on your sheet, or whether you start with what your character is doing in the imaginary world ends up being a pretty important distinction.

They're both cool, and can both be fun, but they're different *types* of fun. And some games are more conducive to one over the other - a game that forces heavy mechanics interaction will be difficult to play "fiction-first", because of the constraints of what can be done by the mechanics, and the gaming of the mechanics that usually accompanies such systems. OTOH, a lighter system usually is *deadly dull* when played "fiction-first", as their mechanics are usually too simple and streamlined to allow for much gaming/system mastery type interaction.

So you've got about three issues when trying to move from a mechanics-first approach to a fiction-first approach.

1) Some players may not be used to the fiction-first approach, and may be uncomfortable with it.

2) Some players just may be more interested in the gaming/system-mastery type fun, and may not be as interested in the type of fun that comes from a fiction-first approach.

3) The game system you're using may be causing friction with a fiction-first approach.

So, it's really a matter of figuring out those three issues, and reconciling them, or at least understanding where friction may be coming from.

My usual thing is, when players just utter mechanics-speak, to just ask "Okay, so what do you *do*?" This usually gets to the point. I don't even care if the answer is "I hit him with my sword", as long as it's not pure mechanics-speak.

This can become difficult in some cases, as if you're doing a Spring Attack in 3.x, for instance, that *is* what you're doing. Extra description is really just redundant in many ways, and tends towards purple prose.

Jay R
2014-02-05, 06:30 PM
As the DM of the Roleplay Intensive Campaign, I feel that asking for my players to describe all of their actions In Character isn't really all that much to ask.

It may not be too much to ask, but it is inherently inconsistent. As a fencer, I don't say, "I'm starting a major attack combination now, passing to the right to throw a face shot from broad ward."

A thief would never say, "I'm now trying to slip around behind him so I can cut his purse."

Describing their actions in character, in a situation in which the character would not describe the action himself, is out of character.

I suspect that you really want them to describe the action in action terms instead of rules jargon:
"I engage the goblin on my left," rather than "I make a to-hit roll against this figure."
"I try to cut his purse" rather than, "I make a Cutpurse skill check. What's the DC?

If this is what you're trying to get them to do, then ask them to describe the action instead of the game mechanic. It's less threatening to people who don't like play-acting.

If this is not what you're trying to do, I recommend that you shift to this, for the same reason. Until your players are comfortable doing this, they aren't ready to try to act out the character's role.

Red Fel
2014-02-05, 08:46 PM
One of the issues, as Kyoryu pointed out, is when you ask for the description. There can be friction between rolled-actions and played-actions.

For example, say your Filthy Sneaking Rogue is attempting to sneak past the guards. He announces, "With trained skills and nerves tight as a wire, I slip gently past the guards, like a shadow in the night; my body contours into the shadows on the wall, and the soft soles of my slippers muffle any possible sound."

And then he rolls a 1.

I don't care what kind of bonuses you hand out for good descriptions (and you should), that's a failed roll. The description now has no bearing whatsoever on the "reality" of the roll. You can't very well ignore the roll; doing so abandons the pretense of mechanics and turns it into a "Who's the best Wordsmith?" freeform game.

By contrast, having the players roll first gives them guidance as to how they execute their action. For example, say your Big Dumb Barbarian is going to hit something with his Big Dumb Axe, as he is wont to do. Natural 20. Instead of "I hit it with my axe," he announces, "Grognard roars, mouth foaming with berserk fury, as he brings his axe to bear. The steel rends flesh like a knife through butter, as entrails decorate the surrounding landscape." In this way, the roll played has defined the role to be played.

Sometimes, however, it's not as clear. Suppose that your Worthless Lecherous Bard is trying to shmooze the storekeeper into giving the party a discount. Between his roll and modifiers, he gets a 12. Suppose the player of the Spoony Elven Git then proceeds to detail how he smiles, winks, makes a few in-jokes and knowingly nudges the storekeep with his elbow.

At this point, a 12 could go either way. Perhaps it made the DC, and his filthy, lying tongue successfully turned the storekeeper's head. Or perhaps the DC is higher, because the storekeeper is old hat at this sort of thing, and won't go in for any of this nonsense, don't be silly, got mouths to feed, get yourself from my shop you spoony bard, thank you kindly. Here's where your system can shine - if that roll was close enough that a point or two would make the difference between success and failure, and the player's description was fun and original and fitting, why not give it to him?

The thing to remember is that under no circumstances should players be punished. If they don't roleplay the scenes, or if they do so poorly, they shouldn't receive negative in-character results. However, those who do participate should enjoy some kind of benefit, be it bonuses on their rolls, "bennies" or Action Points to be cashed in, or other less tangible in-game benefits. (For example: "Your diplomatic speech was so successful that a few of the ladies-in-waiting have taken a bit of a fancy to you." Unforeseen benefit much?)

Prince Raven
2014-02-06, 12:02 AM
I for one am I big fan of the roll-then-roleplay style and I always encourage my players to describe what they're doing after a roll, particularly if they get a crit.

Raine_Sage
2014-02-06, 02:26 AM
For example, say your Filthy Sneaking Rogue is attempting to sneak past the guards. He announces, "With trained skills and nerves tight as a wire, I slip gently past the guards, like a shadow in the night; my body contours into the shadows on the wall, and the soft soles of my slippers muffle any possible sound."

And then he rolls a 1.

I don't care what kind of bonuses you hand out for good descriptions (and you should), that's a failed roll. The description now has no bearing whatsoever on the "reality" of the roll.

Man this so much. I have one player who, early on in the campaign, would narrate this long complex sequence of actions before each attack trying to emphasize just how cool it would look when he blasted the goblin with hellfire or whatever. He missed at least 50 percent of the time, and he'd have to backpedal, or just kind of hang his head in embarrassment when his oh so cool attack ended in a fizzle instead of a bang. And since all of it was IC the other characters would tease him about it until he finally caught up in terms of accuracy (I was gracious with the magic items in that regard).

Rolling to hit, and then describing the way they hit or miss is more fun in my opinion, and much much faster.

Driderman
2014-02-06, 02:41 AM
It's the difference between using the dice to tell a story (rolling, then interpreting and describing the scene from the result) and having the roll of the dice be the event in itself (descriptively or non-descriptively, announcing your action and then rolling puts the focus on the dice roll rather than the action itself).

My gaming group(s) have used the first method for years, and it works a lot better than the second one which tends to draw the focus away from the roleplaying and towards the mechanical aspects of the game instead (what's my number, what number did the dice roll, how many numbers can I add to my intial number, what number do I need to roll, etc).

prufock
2014-02-06, 08:00 AM
You need to find balance between roleplaying and roll-playing.

Roleplaying: You speak in character, describe your actions in detail, have monologues and soliloquies, converse with other characters, maintain a consistent personality, have goals, emotions, internal conflict, and flaws.

Roll-Playing: You roll dice and add up numbers to compare to a difficulty in order to determine success or failure of a finite set of actions.

Most RPGs involve both, but in different proportions. You seem to want more of A, while your players want more of B; but you may be making the change too drastic. Ease them into it.

When they say: "I make a diplomacy check to..." respond with "What do you say?"

If your player is either too uncomfortable (some people aren't good at creative thinking and some feel socially awkward) or too lazy to respond, he doesn't want to play a roleplaying game, he wants to play D&D mini combat scenarios or warhammer or something.


Well if your problem is shyness or not being able to put ideas into words, you could actually try a small amount of alcohol. I know it sounds terrible, but a small buzz will help with getting rid of some social fear and that will assist you in being able to roleplay more easily.
"Sounds terrible"? Dude, that's what alcohol is for.


Acting around a table is not the same as roleplaying. Roleplaying is about making decisions, to me.
You make decisions in chess; I wouldn't call that a role-playing game.


if I find the math more fun and I introduce houserules to turn it up to 11. As this DM did with roleplaying, am I wrong? I don't think so. It's just a different style of game, and it won't appeal to everybody.

For some people, roleplaying is incredibly frustrating and difficult, which is why that should be something that shouldn't necessarily be a requirement for everybody.
I think there's a reasonable expectation to roleplay when you're playing a roleplaying game. Yes, D&D has math, and there's nothing wrong with enjoying that aspect of it, but it isn't called a "math game." How much roleplaying can you take out of a game and still call it an RPG?

Yahtzee involves math, chess involves decision-making, go involves both; I wouldn't call any of these an RPG. Something like Zombies! involves rolling dice, doing math, making decisions, collecting and using item, etc; yet it isn't an RPG, even though you portray one character.

Let me be clear: I'm not against other people having their fun any way they want. If the group enjoys kick-in-the-door-and-kill-the-monsters, power to them. My point is that roleplaying in the context of a roleplaying game is entirely reasonable.

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-02-06, 09:47 AM
With the introduction of "roleplaying vs. roll-playing", I believe it's time to whip out the RPG Theory Bingo Card...

neonchameleon
2014-02-06, 09:53 AM
I lied.

I am not the player in the scenario I presented in the OP, but rather the DM of said Roleplay Intensive Campaign. To try and see things the way my player was, I presented the scenario from his position and asked your advice on what to do. This really helped me to understand where he was coming from and how to work things out with him better. Even so, there are aspects of his objections that I still cannot understand, but that is left to be resolved between me and him.

As the DM of the Roleplay Intensive Campaign, I feel that asking for my players to describe all of their actions In Character isn't really all that much to ask. Now It would be silly if I were to ask them to roleplay shopping, leveling up, and other background functions of the game. I haven't nor do I plan to. It was mentioned as it was one of the ways he had pointed out that asking to roleplay could become ridiculous. (He was exaggerating, obviously)

My player has complained that asking him to roleplay during game is asking too much of him, even when it comes to social interactions and strictly story scenes where there isn't anything to do but talk to NPCs or plan with the other PCs. I have asked for descriptions during battle, anything more than "I attack the enemy" is allowed. More interesting descriptions or original ideas using terrain, situational items/events, and/or tricking the enemy into a trap/hurting themselves gains bonuses or special actions otherwise unavailable. (Ex: One can attack and bull rush at the same time, or disarm and trip and opponent in one action rather than taking two turns)

We are working out our differences, but even so he claims that I have demanded too much of him. Hopefully when I present him with some of your ideas (namely, preparing battle descriptions ahead of time which is something I do for my baddies) he'll calm down and realize that being In Character can be very rewarding both story wise and even mechanically wise. I know that his meta-gaming self won't be able to resist gaining bonuses to checks or making multiple attacks/actions a turn. It's all up to me whether his plan grants such bonuses though. And atleast the rules I hold my players to is being applied to myself as well. If I cannot describe the monster's or NPC's action well enough, my players point it out to me. I accept their judgment and give a flat -2 penalty to whatever the monster or NPC was doing.

Glad it seems to be working out.

To take it further, how tied to whatever RPG system you are using are you? Because I think he would really benefit from either Apocalypse World (http://apocalypse-world.com/) or Monsterhearts (http://http//buriedwithoutceremony.com/monsterhearts/); both systems where the characters have their own internal tactical synergies and best possible play is to play your character so hard that you end up bleeding - and I think you're trying to sneak up in GMing style on Fate Core (http://www.evilhat.com/home/fate-core/).

the Roleplaying/Rollplaying dichotomy is nothing more than 90s era White Wolf's excuse for coming up with rules that were not fit for purpose.

Airk
2014-02-06, 09:58 AM
I read it, the point is that it is still a drastic style change, and the player may not enjoy it. That's just how that is, I'm not saying that the DM shouldn't make the change or try to play a game in a way that he enjoys. I'm saying that the player may never really get into it as much as he was previously, he may enjoy that style of play less.

I'm advocating for both sides, and just trying to make sure that the DM is aware that the player may not ever see the light or enjoy the style of game he wants, he may not be a good fit, this happens from time to time.

Yes, but like I said, right now, it doesn't sound like the player is even willing to TRY. He can't know if he likes it until he tries it. Therefore...

AMFV
2014-02-06, 09:59 AM
You need to find balance between roleplaying and roll-playing.

Roleplaying: You speak in character, describe your actions in detail, have monologues and soliloquies, converse with other characters, maintain a consistent personality, have goals, emotions, internal conflict, and flaws.

Roll-Playing: You roll dice and add up numbers to compare to a difficulty in order to determine success or failure of a finite set of actions.

Most RPGs involve both, but in different proportions. You seem to want more of A, while your players want more of B; but you may be making the change too drastic. Ease them into it.

When they say: "I make a diplomacy check to..." respond with "What do you say?"

If your player is either too uncomfortable (some people aren't good at creative thinking and some feel socially awkward) or too lazy to respond, he doesn't want to play a roleplaying game, he wants to play D&D mini combat scenarios or warhammer or something.


"Sounds terrible"? Dude, that's what alcohol is for.


You make decisions in chess; I wouldn't call that a role-playing game.


I think there's a reasonable expectation to roleplay when you're playing a roleplaying game. Yes, D&D has math, and there's nothing wrong with enjoying that aspect of it, but it isn't called a "math game." How much roleplaying can you take out of a game and still call it an RPG?

Yahtzee involves math, chess involves decision-making, go involves both; I wouldn't call any of these an RPG. Something like Zombies! involves rolling dice, doing math, making decisions, collecting and using item, etc; yet it isn't an RPG, even though you portray one character.

Let me be clear: I'm not against other people having their fun any way they want. If the group enjoys kick-in-the-door-and-kill-the-monsters, power to them. My point is that roleplaying in the context of a roleplaying game is entirely reasonable.

And my point is that suddenly changing the expected amount of roleplaying in a set group, may discourage some people. I can enjoy the amount of roleplaying that I get in one setting, and then when suddenly more is expected I can enjoy that less. The point is that while it is not unreasonable for the DM to add more roleplaying scenarios... It is also not unreasonable for the player to not enjoy that style of gaming as much, since it is a different style. I would call that more narrationist than roleplaying, since we see that the DM is requiring the character to roleplay things that don't matter to the character like buying potions. It's a different style of game, and while it's fine for the DM to adjust and switch to that style, it's okay for the players not to like it as well.


Yes, but like I said, right now, it doesn't sound like the player is even willing to TRY. He can't know if he likes it until he tries it. Therefore...

I don't like running a marathon. I've never tried it, but I know I wouldn't like it because I can compare it to other experiences I didn't like. There are a lot of things I'm fairly sure I wouldn't like, even without trying, and as a matter of preference goes, forcing somebody to try something they don't want to is also kind of unpleasant behavior as well.

Airk
2014-02-06, 10:13 AM
I don't like running a marathon. I've never tried it, but I know I wouldn't like it because I can compare it to other experiences I didn't like. There are a lot of things I'm fairly sure I wouldn't like, even without trying, and as a matter of preference goes, forcing somebody to try something they don't want to is also kind of unpleasant behavior as well.

This analogy gets a facepalm from me. That is all.

No one is forcing anyone to do anything anyway. The player can always leave and run his own game where he can roll all the dice he wants without having to 'roleplay'.

jedipotter
2014-02-06, 10:30 AM
Man this so much. I have one player who, early on in the campaign, would narrate this long complex sequence of actions before each attack trying to emphasize just how cool it would look when he blasted the goblin with hellfire or whatever. He missed at least 50 percent of the time, and he'd have to backpedal, or just kind of hang his head in embarrassment when his oh so cool attack ended in a fizzle instead of a bang. And since all of it was IC the other characters would tease him about it until he finally caught up in terms of accuracy (I was gracious with the magic items in that regard).

Rolling to hit, and then describing the way they hit or miss is more fun in my opinion, and much much faster.

The trick is, don't do the ending. Don't say ''I blast hellfire at all the foes, reduce them to ash, and sit back and gloat''. Say more ''I shoot hellfire in a high arc right to come down right on the orc's head.'' Then roll. And continue the description biased on the roll.

AMFV
2014-02-06, 10:44 AM
This analogy gets a facepalm from me. That is all.


It's a good one though, I don't have to try everything under the sun to know that there's things I don't like. I imagine I wouldn't like being shot, I'm not about to run out there and get shot to find out. I'm not saying roleplaying is as bad as being shot, but I am saying that as far as matters of taste goes, I might know my own preferences well enough not to need to try things.



No one is forcing anyone to do anything anyway. The player can always leave and run his own game where he can roll all the dice he wants without having to 'roleplay'.

Yes, which was my whole point to the DM, is that this could be the way it goes, since it turned out the OP was the DM and not the player I shifted my advice to reflect that the player might decide to leave.

Rhynn
2014-02-06, 11:03 AM
You make decisions in chess; I wouldn't call that a role-playing game.

:smallsmile: I can see how it's a tricky distinction to perceive, but the decisions in RPGs are of a different quality and create a much more interesting story than "W e2 to e4, B e7 to e5, W f1 to b5..."

They're still the heart of it, for me. I'm just not interested in improv drama around a table, I'm interested in an emergent story created by game mechanics and player decisions that revolves around what characters decided and did and how they succeeded or failed.

Airk
2014-02-06, 11:12 AM
They're still the heart of it, for me. I'm just not interested in improv drama around a table, I'm interested in an emergent story created by game mechanics and player decisions that revolves around what characters decided and did and how they succeeded or failed.

I think you're tilting dangerous close to a strawman here when you start talking about 'improv drama around a table' with the implication that that someone REMOVES game mechanics and player decisions and the like.

I realize you're probably trying to say "No, no, I need those other things too." but that's not actually a reason to EXCLUDE the drama from roleplaying, which is what it sounded like your original assertion was.

Rhynn
2014-02-06, 11:17 AM
I think you're tilting dangerous close to a strawman here when you start talking about 'improv drama around a table' with the implication that that someone REMOVES game mechanics and player decisions and the like.

I'm not saying the mechanics aren't there, I'm just saying that I literally have no specific interest in players acting out speech or narrating things; it's cool if they feel like it, but I'm fine with being told what the PCs do in plain and simple terms. The lack of improv drama (acting & narrating & oratory) doesn't make it less of a RPG. (Neither, in fact, does a lack of deep characterization or backgrounds.)

"I attack that orc, hit AC 7 for 5 damage."

That'll do, pig. That'll do.

Airk
2014-02-06, 11:27 AM
I'm not saying the mechanics aren't there, I'm just saying that I literally have no specific interest in players acting out speech or narrating things; it's cool if they feel like it, but I'm fine with being told what the PCs do in plain and simple terms. The lack of improv drama (acting & narrating & oratory) doesn't make it less of a RPG. (Neither, in fact, does a lack of deep characterization or backgrounds.)

"I attack that orc, hit AC 7 for 5 damage."

That'll do, pig. That'll do.

I'm not sure I agree. After all, the name is, in fact 'role' playing. If you're not playing the whole role, welp.

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-02-06, 11:31 AM
It's a good one though, I don't have to try everything under the sun to know that there's things I don't like. I imagine I wouldn't like being shot, I'm not about to run out there and get shot to find out. I'm not saying roleplaying is as bad as being shot, but I am saying that as far as matters of taste goes, I might know my own preferences well enough not to need to try things.
Counterpoint: nobody knows their own preferences well enough to say with complete certainty that they can predict what they will and will not like without actually trying it.

The marathon analogy and the "being shot" analogy are flawed arguments, because they argue from extremes. A far better one would be "I don't like tomatoes, therefore I have a pretty good notion that I don't want ketchup on my burger, because it's 99% tomato".

Fun fact: I've known people who disliked tomatoes but liked ketchup.

Honest question: before you started posting on internet forums, what research did you do to determine that it was something you might like? How could you know, until you actually started posting, that it would be an interesting experience? (Hypothesis: most people who post on internet forums just do it because.)

Trying new things is the best way to find out what you like or dislike, and a stubborn resistance to new things is often irrationally stubborn. Frequently, the person who eases up and tries something new will be blissfully surprised, so long as they keep an open mind and haven't made up their minds already. (It's impossible to enjoy a new thing if you're constantly telling yourself that you won't enjoy it, even as you're trying it. A lot of people claim that they've given something a fair shake, when in reality they tried it but had already made up their minds ahead of time.)

The world is full of surprises, but there's one thing which doesn't surprise me: no person is smart enough to know what they'll like, not completely. The only way to figure it out is to keep trying stuff. Filter to the degree that you're comfortable with, but don't let your prejudices box in your ability to try and enjoy new things.

AMFV
2014-02-06, 12:28 PM
Counterpoint: nobody knows their own preferences well enough to say with complete certainty that they can predict what they will and will not like without actually trying it.

The marathon analogy and the "being shot" analogy are flawed arguments, because they argue from extremes. A far better one would be "I don't like tomatoes, therefore I have a pretty good notion that I don't want ketchup on my burger, because it's 99% tomato".

Fun fact: I've known people who disliked tomatoes but liked ketchup.

Honest question: before you started posting on internet forums, what research did you do to determine that it was something you might like? How could you know, until you actually started posting, that it would be an interesting experience? (Hypothesis: most people who post on internet forums just do it because.)

Trying new things is the best way to find out what you like or dislike, and a stubborn resistance to new things is often irrationally stubborn. Frequently, the person who eases up and tries something new will be blissfully surprised, so long as they keep an open mind and haven't made up their minds already. (It's impossible to enjoy a new thing if you're constantly telling yourself that you won't enjoy it, even as you're trying it. A lot of people claim that they've given something a fair shake, when in reality they tried it but had already made up their minds ahead of time.)

The world is full of surprises, but there's one thing which doesn't surprise me: no person is smart enough to know what they'll like, not completely. The only way to figure it out is to keep trying stuff. Filter to the degree that you're comfortable with, but don't let your prejudices box in your ability to try and enjoy new things.

Yes, but unless you're going to force me at gunpoint to try ketchup, then it's a valid thing for me to say. In matters of hobby and taste making up your mind beforehand is absolutely okay, maybe not the most logical way to do things, but it is an acceptable thing, since there are no answers that are objectively more right. Now if the player had posted, I would have suggested he try it, in fact I did, and I gave several types of suggestions as to what he could do to work with the DM, as did several others. When it tuned out that it was the DM, he can't force the player to either try or enjoy it, and not doing either is as much an acceptable choice as doing either.

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-02-06, 12:46 PM
Yes, but unless you're going to force me at gunpoint to try ketchup, then it's a valid thing for me to say. In matters of hobby and taste making up your mind beforehand is absolutely okay, maybe not the most logical way to do things, but it is an acceptable thing, since there are no answers that are objectively more right. Now if the player had posted, I would have suggested he try it, in fact I did, and I gave several types of suggestions as to what he could do to work with the DM, as did several others. When it tuned out that it was the DM, he can't force the player to either try or enjoy it, and not doing either is as much an acceptable choice as doing either.
Fortunately, the GM doesn't appear to be forcing the players at gunpoint. :smallbiggrin:

AMFV
2014-02-06, 12:48 PM
Fortunately, the GM doesn't appear to be forcing the players at gunpoint. :smallbiggrin:

True, and I wasn't saying: "DON'T TRY THAT, YOU FOOL!" I was just trying to let him know that it might turn out that the player just won't like it, or won't try it, or will never improve and there is nothing that in that case, except either live with the fact that the player doesn't like it, or kick the player. Now it's possible the player will adapt and will love it, and I hope that's the case, but it may not be.

Knaight
2014-02-06, 03:26 PM
I'm not sure I agree. After all, the name is, in fact 'role' playing. If you're not playing the whole role, welp.

You are playing the role, you just aren't doing it at a hugely fine level of detail. Illustrating the choices a character makes and the methods a character chooses to use is role playing, it just involves use of a broader brush over what is probably more canvas. It's not my personal style - I like tightly focused games, and consider things like 'highly limited geographical area' a plus - but that doesn't make it not role playing.

Airk
2014-02-06, 03:59 PM
You are playing the role, you just aren't doing it at a hugely fine level of detail. Illustrating the choices a character makes and the methods a character chooses to use is role playing, it just involves use of a broader brush over what is probably more canvas. It's not my personal style - I like tightly focused games, and consider things like 'highly limited geographical area' a plus - but that doesn't make it not role playing.

Does it make it not very good roleplaying? :)

AMFV
2014-02-06, 04:06 PM
Does it make it not very good roleplaying? :)

It depends, as we've pointed out, focusing on minutiae that doesn't help to define your character really doesn't do much, if your character doesn't put much thought into combat and combat isn't really that much of an expression of said character, then extra descriptions of combat aren't improving that character and your immersion, they're just wasting time, in my opinion.

Rhynn
2014-02-06, 05:01 PM
Does it make it not very good roleplaying? :)

It makes for great fun with friends and great, frequently epic stories. It just doesn't make a Sopranos-style personal exploration about any of the characters. It's not like anybody's being evaluated by some outside judge...

Well, maybe if they share how they play online. :smallamused:

Knaight
2014-02-06, 05:28 PM
Does it make it not very good roleplaying? :)

It makes for pretty good adventure stories. If you're aiming for something else, it's probably not the best technique.

Volos
2014-02-06, 06:44 PM
To those of you who suggest that suddenly changing the roleplaying style of my game could be harmful to the fun or player enjoyment; I must admit that my changes were (for the most part) in word only. Of all my players, only one hasn't been approaching Pathfinder as a role-playing game rather than a combat simulator... the player I was pretending to be in the opening post. I noticed that his meta-gaming tendencies were starting to rub off on the other players and myself as well to some extent. To clarify, I consider looking at a situation and deciding what mechanical or rules based approach to take as meta-gaming; whereas I consider finding a reasonable in-character approach to solving an issue to not be meta-gaming.

After talking to one of the game shop's owners, an experienced DM who is favored by his players, we came to the conclusion that my role-playing style was too loose. I was creating an environment where the players we not encouraged to role-play and instead were being forced into thinking of the game in only mechanical terms to solve ever increasingly difficult challenges presented to them. We worked out a strategy to change the game environment to where the players would be encouraged, rewarded, and ultimately driven to role-play. For starters; house-rule that the player cannot speak in mechanical terms and must describe their actions. Later; reward the players for good role-play (consider penalizing bad or lazy role-play. Bad/lazy would be a lack or description or something like "I hit it.") by giving them in-game and in-story incentives. And even later, allow the players to describe amazing heroic actions and roll with the punches, letting them get away with almost anything they can describe well enough and back up with decent rolls. There was more, but it was more detailed and I don't have it on hand right now.

And to the topic of describing actions either before or after rolls; my suggestion is why not both? I hadn't thought of this, but it makes perfect sense after reading all of your posts. I'll have the player describe WHAT they are trying to do, and HOW they are trying to do it. If a roll is required they will roll, after the result is known and I let them know if they succeed or fail, either myself or they can describe the success or failure. Seems like a good compromise as well as a more reasonable approach to combat and certain skill checks.

AMFV
2014-02-06, 06:45 PM
To those of you who suggest that suddenly changing the roleplaying style of my game could be harmful to the fun or player enjoyment; I must admit that my changes were (for the most part) in word only. Of all my players, only one hasn't been approaching Pathfinder as a role-playing game rather than a combat simulator... the player I was pretending to be in the opening post. I noticed that his meta-gaming tendencies were starting to rub off on the other players and myself as well to some extent. To clarify, I consider looking at a situation and deciding what mechanical or rules based approach to take as meta-gaming; whereas I consider finding a reasonable in-character approach to solving an issue to not be meta-gaming.

Well it sounds like what he finds fun is different than what you find fun, could it be that he's just not a good fit for your group?

TuggyNE
2014-02-06, 07:04 PM
Counterpoint: nobody knows their own preferences well enough to say with complete certainty that they can predict what they will and will not like without actually trying it.

The marathon analogy and the "being shot" analogy are flawed arguments, because they argue from extremes. A far better one would be "I don't like tomatoes, therefore I have a pretty good notion that I don't want ketchup on my burger, because it's 99% tomato".

Fun fact: I've known people who disliked tomatoes but liked ketchup.

I am one of those persons. I also like tomato soup. Actual tomatoes, though? Do not want!

Volos
2014-02-08, 12:21 AM
Well it sounds like what he finds fun is different than what you find fun, could it be that he's just not a good fit for your group?

I've looked at it from that assumption, compiled what I know about this player from running him for the better part of two years, being best-friends for a similar length, and deciphering what limited amount of feedback I've gotten from him (he really restrains himself from saying anything until he is fed-up, a character flaw I am familiar with and willing to overlook for the most part)... and... I think I've put him out of his comfort zone. When I was letting players slide in and out of character, allowing players to call the shots and roll dice all willy-nilly, and doing other things that were leading to disruptive non-story focused play... he was fine. He'd come to me looking for roleplay on occasion, or 'deal' with any scenes where his character became the focus. If he couldn't roll a die to 'win' a situation, he wasn't having fun but at least he wasn't complaining.

He sees the game as a challenge that he can beat by having big numbers and rolling high regardless of how much 'sense' it would make for his character to take said actions in regards to story or just reasonable Pathfinder/D&D physics/magics. (Ex: I can see a hero jumping across a 10, 15, even 20 foot chasm. But without magical aid it makes no sense to be 'flying' across a 100ft chasm by simply running and jumping. We, the other players and I, could understand his character attacking his rival on sight but can't understand why he'd start a fight with five town guards over something as simple as wanting him to peace bond his weapon when he's Lawful-Good and his backstory explains how he's always been cooperative with the town guard)

Now that I'm asking him to evaluate situations and react to them as his character would, he doesn't know what to do. He has been put out of his comfort zone. He doesn't have the rules to back up whatever crazy schemes he is concocting between combat rounds. The familiarity of Difficulty Classes, Armor Classes, Save Bonuses, and Skill Checks are no longer there unless I deem them necessary. I was humor-fied by the look on his face when I first allowed a player to succeed on a check without rolling a single die, just because it wasn't worth the time to roll and slow the game down for something minor. "But what about his roll!?!" He cried, which perplexed me. Everything I've read and what the more experienced and successful DM told me was that you shouldn't make players roll for things they can't fail, it slows down the game. Also skipping non-dramatic or important rolls at the right times helps speed the game along to the important dramatic rolls. Will he unlock the door before the charging ogre attacks? Can they climb down the building before it collapses?

Hopefully my friend will become accustomed to how I intend to run my games. It its the last one I will be able to run before leaving for my new home, which is hours and hours away from the local area. It may be my last real game, which makes me want to make it as epic as possible. Finding the sweet spot between roleplay and fun can be difficult, but it is worth shooting for. The other players are loving the new style, but I'll see what I can do to tone it down or make the transition easier for my friend. I know he won't quit the game over it, but he may raise quite a bit of a stink over it for the next few sessions unless I find a way to get him to go along with it. Here's hoping.

gdiddy
2014-02-08, 04:09 AM
You're on the right track. I would consider a full system switch to Fate or something more in line with your vision, just because PF has too many numbers for some players to be able to help themselves. They just want to keep throwing dice and making numbers until they win. Don't worry about extricating your fried from the group. Friends don't have to play Monopoly together if one of them doesn't like playing Monopoly. Bad game is always worse than no game.

Volos
2014-02-08, 08:28 AM
You're on the right track. I would consider a full system switch to Fate or something more in line with your vision, just because PF has too many numbers for some players to be able to help themselves. They just want to keep throwing dice and making numbers until they win. Don't worry about extricating your fried from the group. Friends don't have to play Monopoly together if one of them doesn't like playing Monopoly. Bad game is always worse than no game.

Eh... since he got a second job and I'm moving in 6-7 months, this is the only way for us to hang out and is honestly the original reason we are friends. I needed players when I moved into the area, and he was familiar with RPGs. We became friends sometime after that, not entirely sure when the lines between gaming buddies and friends were blurred. I need him in my game, so asking him not to play really isn't an option.

CombatOwl
2014-02-08, 10:51 AM
Your GM had a decent idea ("get them more involved through roleplay!") but put it into practice really badly. Long descriptions are not inherently better or worthier than short ones, and the real way to create involvement is to hook the players into the setting and the events and the characters, not to mandate unnecessarily wordy descriptions. Your group needs to have a discussion about this, and if y'all don't come to a consensus that will make for a fun game for you, you should walk and find a game that does work for you.

Eh, I'm not so sure that's a universal sentiment. Personally, I'm okay with people just taking an interest in what's going on without continual lengthy descriptions (though I do sometimes prompt for them in situations where the mechanics fail to provide adequate detail). However, I also know a DM who claims to prefer "roleplaying not rollplaying" who loves lengthy descriptions of what characters are doing but criticizes people for having characters who take issue with being a murder-hobo. As an example, he apparently considers it wildly out of alignment for chaotic good outsiders to have empathy with anything flagged as evil (empathy as in "It's regrettable that we were forced to slay that evil creature, as it was still an intelligent creature. Maybe we ought to give it a burial?"). Admittedly, I hadn't voiced that particular moral quandary before, but this particular incident really was just an exceptional case of casual murder-hoboism in a random encounter on a trip to a city while the party wasn't on a time crunch. It seemed like a good chance to point out that what we were doing might be, in some ways, regrettable or wrong. The DM got into a vocal and extended argument with me about how this was bad roleplaying and how it was unbelievably far out of alignment. When we restarted, the "good" party's first question amounted to "so what can I carve off this dragon's fresh corpse?" followed quickly by "hey, does anyone have that spell that lets you carve a map to the dragon's hoard into its skin?" I... stopped bothering to consider morality at that point and volunteered my mythic sorcerer to do the casting (using wild arcana, for people wondering why the sorcerer had the spell). It was, however, perfectly in-alignment for chaotic good characters (all but one of the party is CG) to decide they want to do some blood magic to find a dragon's hoard, decide to shoot first and ask questions later regarding the kobolds defending the place (they were descended from a blue dragon, therefore automatically acceptable targets), use horrid wilting to kill almost fifty kobolds (by desiccating them while still alive), and leave so much blood on the floor that they intimidate the remainder of the kobolds into giving up their dead dragon's treasure. I've often butted heads with said DM over similar matters, when I play a character who knowingly makes a choice to do what is difficult (but in keeping with the character's morality) rather than what is easy (but questionable according to the character's morality), or who I play as having insufficient knowledge or emotional maturity to take the tactically correct option. I don't choose to monopolize game time by voicing an inner monologue weighing these options, therefore my character making "wrong" choices is bad roleplaying to that DM.

That example isn't about criticizing a DM--I believe he's telling the truth about preferring roleplaying. But I also think that we're talking about two different things when we're talking about roleplaying. To me, my character questioning its actions is an example of good roleplaying (characters considering the moral consequences of their actions and finding their own choices wanting), but obviously others disagree ("you're acting out of alignment," "you're not roleplaying"). So I would pose the idea that perhaps some people have a different concept of roleplaying beyond portraying believable characters (who may have personality flaws) and who instead view roleplaying as the provision of detail and the willing limitation of character action to adherence to social conventions. And, for the latter group, roleplaying is more about describing in detail what your character does than it is about characters weighing their options and facing personal dilemmas.

I don't particularly like the latter sentiment, but I'm also willing to simply not bother role-playing in such games. Personally I'm happy to just play D&D as a turn-based tactical game with the good team vs. the evil team.Such games are simply not roleplaying games in my opinion. Maybe the OP's DM is of the sort who holds that roleplaying is more about fleshing out the details of a character's life and actions than about choices.

Mastikator
2014-02-08, 12:04 PM
[snip]
I don't like running a marathon. I've never tried it, but I know I wouldn't like it because I can compare it to other experiences I didn't like. There are a lot of things I'm fairly sure I wouldn't like, even without trying, and as a matter of preference goes, forcing somebody to try something they don't want to is also kind of unpleasant behavior as well.

That's a strange anology. It's more like trying to add a time limit to a game of chess to force someone to make a movie that doesn't want to make a move. If you don't wanna play chess that's fine, but don't sit in the players chair saying you're playing chess if you refuse to make any moves when it's your turn.

Scow2
2014-02-08, 12:09 PM
I gotta hand it to you...that was a brilliant plot twist.
And yet, I've seen it before on these forums... you'd be surprised how often a "Player" often comes to these forums complaining/asking questions about how their "DM" works, while actually being the DM and trying to see how we percieve the situation from the player side.

AMFV
2014-02-08, 01:01 PM
That's a strange anology. It's more like trying to add a time limit to a game of chess to force someone to make a movie that doesn't want to make a move. If you don't wanna play chess that's fine, but don't sit in the players chair saying you're playing chess if you refuse to make any moves when it's your turn.

But what if I like to spend time evaluating and thinking about my moves. That's the kind of chess game I enjoy, is one where there's a lot of thought put into it. There are people that love speed chess and people that don't. It's the same thing. Also narrating your character's actions is not necessarily roleplaying in the same way that dressing up as the character is also not.

TuggyNE
2014-02-08, 09:13 PM
And yet, I've seen it before on these forums... you'd be surprised how often a "Player" often comes to these forums complaining/asking questions about how their "DM" works, while actually being the DM and trying to see how we percieve the situation from the player side.

Well, I've seen three or four times in the last year or two, off hand. Out of hundreds or thousands of actual player requests, that's a pretty small fraction.