PDA

View Full Version : Roleplaying Appeal of Roleplay?



goto124
2014-12-08, 01:48 PM
To be honest, I haven't played Tabletop games before. I have played a roleplay MUD (Multi-User Dungeon) before, however.
(Out of curiousity, who here has played a MUD before/is an active MUD player?)
I guess that's a very important difference, because MUDs are computer games, tabletop games aren't (as far as I can tell). But nevermind.
It also means that the opinions shown here are coming from a clueless newbie. Apologies.

During my time in the MUD, I attempted some form of roleplay.
I tried to talk about game mechanics in a more 'roleplay' sense (e.g. 'sleeping' for logging out).

However, when it came to giving my character a personality, I was stuck.
How does this affect my actions in the game anyway?
No matter what my character's... character is supposed to be, I had to practice my skills/spells, explore the world, kill stuff, be nice to other players.
Being Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil or being assertive or shy or having dead parents doesn't seem to change any of that. So I can't kill this guy because my char's Good or what? I have to explore this dungeon in a way that's dangerous and can kill me because my char's a curious person? I don't even have much flexibility in the way I talk to other players. For one thing, I have to constantly ask them questions about game mechanics. In addition. the moment I'm so much as slightly rude, the players will kill me, refuse to ressurect me when I'm dead, refuse to sell me that nice piece of equipment, etc.
I just couldn't figure out why my char's personality was important at all, or how I could do it without getting in the way of playing the game.

As a forumer once said (paraphrasing), there's a difference between the character suffering, and the player suffering.
Trouble is, how do you do the former without causing the latter?

LibraryOgre
2014-12-08, 02:03 PM
Part of it is that a well-developed character informs your actions and mechanical choices.

For example, take a look at Roy, in Order of the Stick. He's a single-classed fighter who is both Lawful and Good. Why? Well, he's a fighter in part because he idolizes his grandfather (who he didn't meet alive), and in part as a reaction against his father the wizard. He's lawful and good partially because of how he was raised, but the various factors that go into his life determine the choices he makes... he's a good person, so he saves his friends from danger, even if it means risking himself or briefly turning himself into a woman.

Why is he a fighter, when he's got the intelligence, wisdom and charisma to be a paladin, wizard, or cleric? Because his grandfather was a fighter. He might have worked better as one or the other, but he's a fighter because it fits background.

Madfellow
2014-12-08, 02:12 PM
I've never played a MUD before, but I'll do my best to answer your question.

In a Tabletop experience, everyone has gathered together under the shared assumption that roleplaying is going to happen. It's like an improv club, almost. Your character sheet and the dice and the rules tell you what your character CAN do, but it is you, the player, who decides what you WILL do, and HOW you want to do it.

As an example, I'll use the most recent adventure I ran for my group. Spoilered for length:

The party had wandered into a swamp inhabited by gatormen and a dragon-worshipping cult, based in a castle in the swamp's center. The party came to a small campsite with a handful of canoes moored at the water's edge. They had been walking for a day and were all tired, but because someone they knew was in danger, they chose to press ahead instead of resting for the night.

Soon after, they encountered a gatorman scouting party. The group's sorcerer chose to try and trick them by saying they were cultists. The gatormen bought it, but wouldn't let them keep their weapons because they didn't entirely trust the player characters. Every character EXCEPT the sorcerer chose to give up their weapons and spell implements to keep up the ruse. The sorcerer instead chose to cast Crown of Madness on two of the gatormen, instigating a fight.

The party beat the gators, and afterward chose to keep one of them around for questioning. The gatorman cooperated, and revealed that the gators were slaves to the cult. He asked the party to help liberate the swamp from the cult in exchange for help rescuing their friend. The party chose to accept.

That's only part of it, but you can see my point I think. A tabletop game is very fluid, and the players' choices are very important. Each player imagines a character, and in every moment imagines what their character would do in the situation they find themselves in. Tabletop games are built on this dynamic, and roleplaying is almost a requirement for entry.

I don't know if a computer game [not made by Bioware] is capable of emulating this, to be honest. It's built with different assumptions. If you want to try a more roleplay-centered experience, maybe give a tabletop game a try. You sound like the kind of person who would enjoy it.

I hope this helps.

Kid Jake
2014-12-08, 02:23 PM
I played Imperian pretty regularly for about eight years and if anything it made me fonder of roleplaying than tabletop alone ever did. Having a big knighting ceremony after I finally learned how to kick an appropriate amount of ass to be known as Lord was an awesome feeling. Playing a mixture of Vanity Smurf and Sergeant Hartman is something that I could never pull off with a straight face in RL, but in MUD format it was an absolute blast to have a custom mirror with my face lovingly rendered on the back so that nobody would ever be denied my glorious mug for even a moment and then turn around and put the fear of the dark gods into some raw recruit who forgot his dress jacket.

oxybe
2014-12-08, 02:34 PM
I generally find personality and whatnot develops as I play, rather then have everything ready infront of me.

I usually come into a game with a character who's mechanically fun to play and has a vague outline tying him to the game world/setting. Nothing too specific.

Then once play starts I get a better feel for the chemistry of the group and a more concrete personality for the character starts appearing.

One of the characters I'm currently playing is unquestionably loyal to the party: when the campaign started she found the odd-duck races that comprised the party something she could relate to and grew fond of them. The choices of spells and whatnot slowly formed to create a character who is unsettling to those who don't know her: she hangs out with insects, vermin & whatnot, is more at ease inside a dark hut hovering over alchemical fumes then doing an honest day's work in the fields and has no problem using magic of questionable ethics to further party goals (from mind control to demon summoning). Loves the party to bits though, is very frank and open with them and has no problem compromising if they ask that of her.

Just don't get her mad. The last person to do so may or may not be a topiary decoration/pigeon perch at the moment.

Another character I'm playing started as virtually a blank slate, a character I quickly wrote up after my current PC had died due to another PC's reckless actions mid-session and we had to retroactively shoe-horn into the next week's session so I could actually play that week. Virtually everything about him is coming out as I play him. I never figured he would end up being a lush, or one that would drunkenly flaunt his magic (illusions and evocation) to liven up a party, nor that he would be a bit of a coward but extremely curious.

I never come to a new game with a character 100% prepared, personality wise. Just find a way to tie the character with the campaign, just a quick "why am I here and doing this thing" and let the rest develop as it goes. If you eventually realize that having dead parents would make the PC more interesting and they haven't had any impact or meaning on the story, kill them off! If you realize that the reason your PC seems to be a caring person is because he comes from a doting family and it rubbed off on him, say so!

Most GMs I know would love to have these hooks thrown at them and more then a few have used these little bits I throw out 6-7 sessions in as a reason to further tie my PC to the setting at hand.

Yeah it's nice to know everything beforehand (trust me, i'm very much an overprepared type of person) but when it comes to RP and characters, I find I'm at my best when I let the personality develop a bit more organically.

Not everyone is like that though, so it may not work for you, but it doesn't hurt to try it out once or twice.

As for the difference between MUDs and TTRPGs, I would say the GM is probably the biggest factor in how you can interact with the game world and the second is that the players are usually face to face (in a traditional TTRPG, though many online tables exist where you can play over google+, skype or whatnot). Rather then have everything parsed through a sterile computer, it goes through a human who can adjudicate if needed.

Lord knows I've made my poor GMs over the years scratch their heads with weird questions and rule interactions.

A TTRPG plays socially closer to something like a traditional boardgame like monopoly, clue or risk, rather then a MUD. That in a TTRPG you're also most likely working together towards a goal also helps: the faster the other players can get you proficient and versed in how the game plays, the quicker you can help them achieve their goals (either personal or group).

You're also likely to be playing with friends, unless it's a 100% pure pickup game, which does exist, so it's probably going to be a friendlier and more inviting environment.

Madfellow
2014-12-08, 03:05 PM
I'd like to expand on my previous post, specifically the part about underlying assumptions.

In Multiplayer Online Games, the avatar is an extension of the player. The emphasis is on playing the game and playing it well, and the people you play with are probably strangers. Since these games are cooperative, one person making poor choices can bring down the whole group and make things very frustrating.

In Tabletop RPGs, the avatar is its own character, brought to life by the player. This core assumption adds a new dimension to the gameplay. Most often, a TTRPG is played with a group of close friends, so one person making poor decisions is more likely to be forgiven, especially if it makes the game more fun.

Keep in mind, though, that these are very broad generalizations.

Red Fel
2014-12-08, 03:17 PM
(Out of curiousity, who here has played a MUD before/is an active MUD player?)

I used to play MUDs quite a lot, actually, so I know where you're coming from.


During my time in the MUD, I attempted some form of roleplay.

Part of the problem with RP in MUDs is that MUDs, being computerized, are on timers. Or, to put it differently, there are things you want or have to do, and windows in which you can do them. For example, you may have a quest where you have to kill a certain mob, who only spawns once every X hours, and so you have to be there when it happens. That kind of mechanic limits your ability to build a character.

Additionally, in my experience, a MUD character is rarely informed or influenced by RP choices. When I chose races or classes in MUDs, I chose them for purely mechanical reasons. While you may choose such things in TTRPGs for mechanical reasons, there are also RP reasons why you might choose something. (A perfect example, in D&D, is the Human race - they're generally an optimal choice mechanically, but they tend to be very dull flavor-wise.) There is no RP benefit in most MUDs to any choice, optimal or otherwise.


No matter what my character's... character is supposed to be, I had to practice my skills/spells, explore the world, kill stuff, be nice to other players.
Being Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil or being assertive or shy or having dead parents doesn't seem to change any of that. So I can't kill this guy because my char's Good or what? I have to explore this dungeon in a way that's dangerous and can kill me because my char's a curious person? I don't even have much flexibility in the way I talk to other players. For one thing, I have to constantly ask them questions about game mechanics. In addition. the moment I'm so much as slightly rude, the players will kill me, refuse to ressurect me when I'm dead, refuse to sell me that nice piece of equipment, etc.
I just couldn't figure out why my char's personality was important at all, or how I could do it without getting in the way of playing the game.

Like I said, there is little or no benefit to RP in most MUDs. Some MUDs have an RP code, which basically forces you to remain in character. I've even been on some MUDs (or MUCKs or other MU*s with MUD-like code) where there was a voting system, which allowed good RPers to be rewarded with XP. But that's rare, in my experience; really, it boils down to being a purely mechanical game with purely mechanical choices and actions.

More importantly, many MUDs are competitive, in a way that TTRPGs are not. You're competing with other players for kills or loot, or engaging in PvP. As a result, if you give other players a reason to disregard or be hostile towards you, they will. By contrast, TTRPGs are (usually) very cooperative activities, requiring teamwork and collaboration. As a result, while being a jerk is frowned upon, the other players have at least some incentive not to kill your character off for a wrong look.


As a forumer once said (paraphrasing), there's a difference between the character suffering, and the player suffering.
Trouble is, how do you do the former without causing the latter?

Now, here's the thing. That question makes it sound like you're leaning towards playing an Evil character. Which is fine, within limits. And that limit is, generally, "no PvP unless the table agrees to it in advance." As a rule, in TTRPGs, if you're causing character suffering, you've crossed that line. That's not what RP is (usually) about.

On the other hand, you may be asking "How can I make my character suffer without suffering myself?" To which my response is, "If you don't want your character to suffer, don't write him that way." Not every character needs a tragic history, not every character needs to make stupid life choices (such as deliberately planting himself in front of a fireball because it's pretty). RP isn't specifically about doing sub-optimal things; it's about doing fun things, which may or may not be optimal choices, and sharing them with others, who are doing likewise.

Here's what RP is about. TTRPGs are social games where a group of people - usually or eventually friends - gather around the table, talk, laugh, act, and roll dice. They are collaborative, engaging, and involve personal interaction. MUDs are substantially more individual - they don't always require a party, you can generally play on your own schedule, and as a result interaction can often be staggered. TTRPGs require interaction.

Knaight
2014-12-08, 04:00 PM
However, when it came to giving my character a personality, I was stuck.
How does this affect my actions in the game anyway?
No matter what my character's... character is supposed to be, I had to practice my skills/spells, explore the world, kill stuff, be nice to other players.

This is one of the big differences between a MUD and a tabletop game. The character's character can dramatically change what it is you do and what happens in the game in the latter, because the constraints of a pre-built computerized system are removed.

As for the appeal, there's a mix of the appeal of improvisational theater, of problem solving within constraints, and of a bunch of other things.

Hiro Protagonest
2014-12-08, 04:08 PM
This is one of the big differences between a MUD and a tabletop game. The character's character can dramatically change what it is you do and what happens in the game in the latter, because the constraints of a pre-built computerized system are removed.

Yeah. Those complaints just seem to support the idea that playing a game with a GM gives you a lot more freedom than a computer game.

Which is fine for computer games. They are able to have a lot better gameplay. In exchange, the best stories in them are completely linear, and the closest you can get to story freedom is a game that spends a lot of resources on developing what is effectively different games with the same gameplay, based on choices that you make (I don't even know if such a game exists, although the visual novel Katawa Shoujo has basically five isolated stories, with bad endings for each).

Granted, some of the best stories can come from games like X-COM, where you can create your own narrative based on the luck and skills of your soldiers.

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-12-08, 04:34 PM
Huh, interesting. That's a little similar to my own experience, but not quite.

My background started with creative writing, and moved on to freeform forum RP on a forum called Entmoot. There were no mechanics, just characters. And I sorta had a persona that was related to my forum handle, Curubethion. I played as that character, but also other characters. Since we were dovetailing it into Lord of the Rings, we could also draw on characters we already knew and loved.

After Entmoot, I actually spent a bit of time playing an RP-intensive MUD called Shadows of Isildur. I was utterly terrible at the MUD aspect, but it was still pretty interesting. You had to write up a character concept and submit it for review by admins, who would approve it or sent you back a message regarding things you had to change. Then, at that point, you had to play your character appropriately, and they had admins to keep players in line. There was actually a lot of interesting stuff they did with the engine. For instance, they tended to string out combat by telling people to roleplay out combat with an opponent before actually issuing an Attack command. You'd do this by making heavy use of the Emote command. (As I understand it, a lot of MUDs have Emote commands?)

For those who don't know what the Emote command is, it's a command that lets you intertwine character names and objects into a text string that gets echoed into the chat. For instance, "emo swings %sword at %elf" would get translated into "A battle-worn ranger swings a pitted, simple shortsword at a haughty, sneering elf." (Each character has a "short description" associated with them, so that you can target people without knowing their name. In the above example, I could also use "%haughty" to target the elf, and "%pitted" to target the sword. Though of course you have to be careful in case there's more than one thing using the same keyword!)

Having those fictional tools can definitely help make things interesting, but it definitely comes down to investment. Being on a timer definitely makes things harder. In Shadows of Isildur, they managed this by scheduling massive Events that players could log on for, such as big battles, and then players would do things that built up to this.

From there, I went on to RP at a site called The LOTR Plaza, which had an interesting approach. There were several in-character subboards, each corresponding to a kingdom from Lord of the Rings. When you first registered, you were treated as a mere citizen in the kingdom, and could only play as that sort of character. You could, however, join up with an RP organization (I joined with the Rangers of Minas Tirith), which put you through an RP apprenticeship.

The big jump I had to make from there to tabletop RPGs was the fact that I didn't have a single character I invested with. My creative writing background took care of the rest, I guess. That sounds like it might be a different case for you. However, I'd encourage you to just jump in. Don't worry about figuring out your whole character. Get comfortable by finding one or two characters from fiction you can imitate, with the intention of moving beyond that. Then add some minor character trait, like being outgoing with pretty much everyone, or being picky about the upkeep of your armor, or liking flowers, or something like that. Look for un-intrusive ways to fit it into the game. (Just make sure you're not dragging the game off the rails...)

veti
2014-12-08, 04:47 PM
As far as roleplay is concerned, MUDs are - as you've noted - extremely limiting. There are a (very) limited number of ways to interact with your environment, and quite a lot of things can't be interacted with at all, they're just static - scenery, whose sole purpose is either to get in your way (i.e. make you go the way the plot wants you to), or just to look pretty.

In a tabletop game, there's no such thing as "static" objects. You can interact with anything. (Some DMs hate this, but there's no getting away from it.) There's also no "walkmesh": no limit to the number of directions you can head in.

In the same way, there is no real limit (except your imagination, and what your character can do) to the number of ways you can interact with other people. That peasant in front of you trying to sell his pig? You can not only stab him or pick his pocket, you can strike up a conversation, learn his family history, hobbies and interests, taunt him, recruit him to your cult, marry him...

Raimun
2014-12-08, 06:27 PM
Roleplaying is just a different thing from computer games. I'm not saying you couldn't roleplay in a computer game but most often, that is not expected in MUDs/WoW/MMOs. There's not much point in roleplaying if the entire game doesn't revolve around it. MMOs(/MUDs/whatever) just aren't for this kind of thing.

In fact, the entire point of roleplaying is that everything revolves around it. Roleplaying is the combination of shared storytelling and gaming and there's a world where a fictional scenario is played out. It's isn't just about dungeoncrawling and ability scores, even though they do feature in many traditional pen and paper RPGs.

Now, if you want to try roleplaying within a computer game, you should play single player computer RPGs. I've always found out that if it's the atmosphere and the storytelling you want, single player RPGs deliver it better than MMOs, since everything is consistent and endless hordes of "heroes" don't go around yelling: "plz give gold!!!1" in public chat.

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-12-08, 11:03 PM
No, I do think that MUDs are a neat halfway point between tabletop RPGs and computer RPGs. You have a limited environment to play around in, but it's an environment with consistent physics (not terribly different from an RPG ruleset) that also lets you have some freedom. MUDs are open-ended, which is why you find some with an RP focus. It's a bit like how Neverwinter Nights had servers that were used like an extended D&D campaign, but online.

MUDs are actually a really cool part of RPG history, and well worth looking into. Since they're not focused on delivering a polished performance like MMOs are, and because assets are far easier to make in a MUD, they're much, much closer to a tabletop RPG than a MUD is.

goto124
2014-12-09, 10:11 AM
Thanks for all the help, everyone.

Seems that the best way to enjoy roleplay, is to move away from MUDs and to more RP-friendly places.

Where can I play Tabletop games with people online? I don't have RL friends interested in that sort of games.

Red Fel
2014-12-09, 10:42 AM
Thanks for all the help, everyone.

Seems that the best way to enjoy roleplay, is to move away from MUDs and to more RP-friendly places.

Where can I play Tabletop games with people online? I don't have RL friends interested in that sort of games.

You're in luck! This very board has a Play by Post (PbP) forum (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?3-Play-by-Post-Games). You can poke around in the Recruitment subforum (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?51-Finding-Players-%28Recruitment%29) to see if anyone is running a game that might appeal to a newcomer.

If you want to play tabletop games, complete with battlemats and minifigs, online, there are various software packages used. Some people also use Skype, or other video chatting software, to conduct a game across broad distances.

Frankly, my advice is to dive right in and try the real thing; most towns will have a gaming store, or at least the next town over will have one, and they tend to be hubs of gaming culture. If you're looking for a game in real life, they're a pretty good place to start.

Dimers
2014-12-09, 08:32 PM
Frankly, my advice is to dive right in and try the real thing; most towns will have a gaming store, or at least the next town over will have one, and they tend to be hubs of gaming culture. If you're looking for a game in real life, they're a pretty good place to start.

My advice is NOT. My experiences with people met for gaming through game stores -- whether playing at the store or at someone's home -- has been pretty poor. Trolls, people with no social skills, manipulators, people trying to sell something ... I mean, not everyone who goes to a game store is bad, of course, but if you don't know them, how are you supposed to find out without getting burned? If you want something in-person, try making friends with the staff first, find out which of them understand people well, then ask them about a good-quality group to join.

But there's lots of good play-by-post RP here and on other forums. In a PbP game you can expand your roleplaying skillset gradually, starting from what you already know. And you'll see lots of different options for RP-intensity; some games are all about RP, while it's secondary in others. Choose the level you want.


No matter what my character's... character is supposed to be, I had to practice my skills/spells, explore the world, kill stuff, be nice to other players.

I wish more people understood that. For the game to be good, you've got to work within its parameters. The appeal of roleplaying comes from how and why you do those things, but if you're playing a remarkably talented role while ignoring plot and annoying everyone you play with, it's not gonna be a good time.

Jay R
2014-12-09, 10:51 PM
Thanks for all the help, everyone.

Seems that the best way to enjoy roleplay, is to move away from MUDs and to more RP-friendly places.

Yes, absolutely. There's nothing wrong with a computer game, but your actions are still being judged by an entity that can only countto one. For role-playing, you need a higher level of judgment.


Where can I play Tabletop games with people online? I don't have RL friends interested in that sort of games.

Giggle. I understood you, of course, but I still think "Tabletop games with people online" is a contradiction of terms.

My strong recommendation is to play with your friends. Try to find some people you already like spending time with who play role-playing games.

Darcand
2014-12-10, 12:49 AM
Part of it is that a well-developed character informs your actions and mechanical choices.

For example, take a look at Roy, in Order of the Stick. He's a single-classed fighter who is both Lawful and Good. Why? Well, he's a fighter in part because he idolizes his grandfather (who he didn't meet alive), and in part as a reaction against his father the wizard. He's lawful and good partially because of how he was raised, but the various factors that go into his life determine the choices he makes... he's a good person, so he saves his friends from danger, even if it means risking himself or briefly turning himself into a woman.

Why is he a fighter, when he's got the intelligence, wisdom and charisma to be a paladin, wizard, or cleric? Because his grandfather was a fighter. He might have worked better as one or the other, but he's a fighter because it fits background.

This more or less nails it. The key difference in Roleplaying vs Rollplaying is making suboptimal choices in order to optimize the story you want to tell.

Raimun
2014-12-10, 09:55 AM
This more or less nails it. The key difference in Roleplaying vs Rollplaying is making suboptimal choices in order to optimize the story you want to tell.

It could be or it could be not. What if your character is supposed to be a master swordsman? One of the very best. World class. Or at least steadily becoming one by dedicating himself to the art of swordsmanship? Would sub-optimal choices still make the narrative consistent?

It works for all walks of life in RPG. If your character is supposed to be an expert in something, you better make some optimal choices in order to tell the story you are trying to tell.

pkoi
2014-12-10, 11:48 AM
It could be or it could be not. What if your character is supposed to be a master swordsman? One of the very best. World class. Or at least steadily becoming one by dedicating himself to the art of swordsmanship? Would sub-optimal choices still make the narrative consistent?

It works for all walks of life in RPG. If your character is supposed to be an expert in something, you better make some optimal choices in order to tell the story you are trying to tell.

Not necessarily. If a person is serious about "role"-playing over "roll"-playing, then their choices should reflect the choices of the character. These may not necessarily be mechanically optimal. For example, if my character wants to be a master, world-class swordsman, then maybe I'd choose for him to be extremely narrow minded and focused on the path of the sword. Thus, he wouldn't take the pants-master skill even if it offered +3000 in footwork over other choices when another choice was the quick-blade draw skill which only offered a +97 to drawing the sword, and number crunchers decided that footwork bonuses were superior to drawing the sword bonuses.

An example of this in fiction could be from the Princess Bride, with Westley and Inigo. Inigo focused his entire damn life on the sword. Westley was significantly more well rounded, and ultimately a mechanically better fighter.

Sartharina
2014-12-10, 12:24 PM
This more or less nails it. The key difference in Roleplaying vs Rollplaying is making suboptimal choices in order to optimize the story you want to tell.... Stormwind fallacy much?

Jay R
2014-12-10, 12:30 PM
My approach is that a character to role-play should be chosen both to be fun to play and to make an effective build possible. Likewise, the build should be designed to be both effective and to fit within the character.

Gustav, my latest Ranger, was designed around the fact that many southerners were coming up to the north, and needed both a guide and a battle-control warrior. So he's a big, tall red-bearded northerner who doesn't understand how the southerners think, carries a guisarme for controlling the field, and routinely questions or laughs at how the southerners do things.

When they explained the politics involved in the eight Great Houses of their city, Gustav's approach was that it had never occurred to him that southern status could matter, even to southerners.

He was a bully as a child, learned better, and now hates bullying, so he sees it as his duty to help these smaller people survive through the forest.

The ideal solution to the character design vs. mechanics design is to refuse to compromise on either, and find a combination of build and character that aren't in conflict.

Having said that, being forced into tactically unsound decisions is still always possible. He was about to take on a demon alone, instead of running, because he had to defend an unconscious stranger.

Amphetryon
2014-12-10, 02:09 PM
This more or less nails it. The key difference in Roleplaying vs Rollplaying is making suboptimal choices in order to optimize the story you want to tell.

:smallconfused: Wouldn't making choices that were suboptimal to the story you were trying to tell be, yanno, counterproductive to telling that story? Is that REALLY what you find the difference between 'roleplaying' and 'rollplaying' to be?

If I want a character to be a really prod-buttock swordsman, or a silver-tongued pickpocket with a heart of gold, or an absent-minded, clumsy arcane caster who accidentally fires off lightning bolts whenever he gets excited, then making choices that were suboptimal to those goal would not make any sort of sense, from a character or story perspective.

Jay R
2014-12-10, 03:42 PM
Wouldn't making choices that were suboptimal to the story you were trying to tell be, yanno, counterproductive to telling that story? Is that REALLY what you find the difference between 'roleplaying' and 'rollplaying' to be?

I disagree with Darcand. I want my character to make optimal decisions. But the optimal decision for one character design isn't inherently the optimal decision for another.


If I want a character to be a really prod-buttock swordsman, or a silver-tongued pickpocket with a heart of gold, or an absent-minded, clumsy arcane caster who accidentally fires off lightning bolts whenever he gets excited, then making choices that were suboptimal to those goal would not make any sort of sense, from a character or story perspective.

Which is why those are not characters people choose to play. Obviously, I want a character who can rise to be a hero. So if I'm playing a swordsman, I want him to be the best swordsman he can be. But that still leaves lots of room for character development. Conan, Cyrano de Bergerac, D'Artagnan, Inigo Montoya, Jaime Lannister, Lancelot, Yoda, and Zorro are all optimized swordsmen - among the best in their respective worlds. But they are very different builds. They will each approach a situation in an optimal way. But they will still do it very differently, based on their very different characters.

Forrestfire
2014-12-10, 05:42 PM
To be fair, in many games, almost every possible character can be considered suboptimal. I mean, look at D&D 3.5. Unless you're a shapeshifting spellcaster with Metamorphic Transfer, a Paladin with the Scaled One of Toril, or a Psion/Thrallherd with a StP Erudite cohort and fusion, you're by definition suboptimal. On some level, he's right :smalltongue:

Personally, I love to build characters that make sense in-universe, have abilities that let them keep pace with the party and the enemies, and have a good backstory and fun characterization. None of those are ever really mutually-exclusive, which is the best bit of playing rpgs.

Amphetryon
2014-12-10, 06:27 PM
Which is why those are not characters people choose to play. Obviously, I want a character who can rise to be a hero. So if I'm playing a swordsman, I want him to be the best swordsman he can be. But that still leaves lots of room for character development. Conan, Cyrano de Bergerac, D'Artagnan, Inigo Montoya, Jaime Lannister, Lancelot, Yoda, and Zorro are all optimized swordsmen - among the best in their respective worlds. But they are very different builds. They will each approach a situation in an optimal way. But they will still do it very differently, based on their very different characters.

My emphasis. People do not choose to play really good swordsmen, or silver-tongued rogues, or absent-minded lightning-throwing arcane types? Really?

Hiro Protagonest
2014-12-10, 06:29 PM
Thus, he wouldn't take the pants-master skill even if it offered +3000 in footwork over other choices

But then you don't get the "pants mastaaa!" theme! :smallfrown::smalltongue:

Sartharina
2014-12-10, 06:34 PM
Which is why those are not characters people choose to play. Speak for yourself.
Obviously, I want a character who can rise to be a hero..Any character concept or character build can rise to be a hero.

Roleplaying has nothing to do with character creation. Roleplaying kicks in when you already have the character made, and are running him in a game - whether it's a Greenbound Planar Shepherd Druid single-handedly restraining the forces of Dal Quor, or a gnomish street thug turning over a new leaf in life as a Paladin.

Something I have noticed, though, is that games that want "Roleplayers, not rollplayers" tend to be more friendly to low-optimization characters because it's an outlet to play those concepts that you think would be interesting, but can't keep pace in a game that doesn't take their deficiencies into account.

Darcand
2014-12-10, 09:14 PM
... Stormwind fallacy much?
I think maybe you misunderstood me, I'm not talking about mechanical choices, I mean situational choices.

Batman learned to be a ninja detective technomancer who has a plan for every situation because it fits his character, but he frequently rejects help because that also fits his character of being a brooding loner.

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-12-10, 11:19 PM
This discussion is all pretty previously-hashed-out and not at all in keeping with the topic of the thread, methinks, which was about a newbie to RPGs getting into the hobby. :smallsmile:

There are certain extremes of mechanical investment in RPGs that stifle character development, yes. However, it's not helpful to bristle one's hackles against all mechanical investment in RPGs, and is generally a bit presumptuous of those people who enjoy working with the system. There's a lot of RPG gearheads who are also strongly invested in their characters as actual personalities.

goto124
2014-12-11, 04:36 AM
When someone says RPG, I tend to think of MMORPGs (WoW, Maplestory and such), and those games actually have zero roleplay.

So what do you mean by RPG? Just trying to clear things up, sorry.

Cazero
2014-12-11, 06:36 AM
When someone says RPG, I tend to think of MMORPGs (WoW, Maplestory and such), and those games actually have zero roleplay.

So what do you mean by RPG? Just trying to clear things up, sorry.

RPG stands for Role Playing Game. Wich WoW and almost every video game pretending to be one are not. They are falsely called that because characters have levels and someone bothered to make some lore.

A RPG is a game where you can take decisions that characterize your character, making him more than a statblock. You are playing his role in the game, hence Role Playing Game. Ideally, such decisions shouldn't be all black and white, wich is why it is difficult to make a computerized RPG. Among successful ones, Icewind Dale 2 and Deus Ex : Human Revolution come to mind.

Dimers
2014-12-11, 09:18 AM
MMOs can certainly be roleplaying games, but the RP there has nothing to do with the levels and equipment and mobs and instances and whatnot. It's about the interaction between humans logged in at the same time.

For single-player computer RPGs that really allow you to play a character -- and to play multiple types of characters -- I'd most recommend Fallout 2 and Planescape:Torment. The dialog options in both of those naturally lead you into some choices about "what kind of person is saying this?"

Cazero
2014-12-11, 10:46 AM
MMOs can certainly be roleplaying games, but the RP there has nothing to do with the levels and equipment and mobs and instances and whatnot. It's about the interaction between humans logged in at the same time.

If you see it that way, so can Warcraft. The RTS.
Play your racist orc warleader without recruiting any troll, goblin, tauren or mercenary in Warcraft 3, and you get what RP is in WoW : actively crippling yourself for unsatisfying flavor. Anything resembling RP can and will be punished by both the game and opposing players in WoW, just like the strategic mistake of denying yourself a wide variety of units in Warcraft 3.

Considering how dramatic their deaths are, NPCs obviously can't get ressurected, so can't I. Wait, that guy just killed me for the lulz. I spent 3 months on that char.
Clearing a dungeon end that threat for good. After all, every boss is named, and ressurection doesn't exist (see above). So I only do them once. Wait, I need to grind them for loot if I don't want to be one-shoted by the mooks in the next one.
I can see you from ten miles, Villain Disguised As Friendly NPC Questgiver. I won't do that for you. Wait, I have to if I ever want to unlock all that cool stuff as reward later, wich I need to survive the previously mentionned mooks.
I'm not hurried, so I walk in town instead of default running. Wait, I now need 15 min just to go speak to that dude, and the party is waiting and might kick me.

Either you state than anything outside of what you say to other players doesn't count (in wich case you could as well be playing on a forum), or RPing utterly destroys the playability of the game.
Most MMOs have the same problem, wich is why I don't consider them as true RPGs. It doesn't mean they're bad games. It doesn't mean you can't create and play a character in (I tried that, and outside of problems like those I listed above, it works). It simply means that the game was not designed for it.

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-12-11, 11:27 AM
If you see it that way, so can Warcraft. The RTS.

Well, there's one major difference--you're missing the key innovation of RPGs, which is a focus on a single character. Otherwise, you're not far off the mark, since American RPGs* came from wargames, aka the proto-RTS. :smallsmile: So yeah--roleplaying a character in Warcraft is just like how Gary and Dave and others started adding roleplaying to wargaming.

*I say "American" for safety's sake, though as far as I know...other countries' RPG scenes developed from the American RPG scene.

goto124
2014-12-11, 12:22 PM
I guess that 'RPG' to a WoW player means something completely different from what Tabletop gamers think. Thanks for the input (including the post below me)

Anyway... I posted in the Free Form Roleplaying (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18512436&postcount=1175) section, as I believe it's the best place for me-who-doesn't-even-know-basics-of-tabletop-game-mechanics. I hope you guys can give me a hand :smallsmile:

Knaight
2014-12-11, 12:38 PM
When someone says RPG, I tend to think of MMORPGs (WoW, Maplestory and such), and those games actually have zero roleplay.

So what do you mean by RPG? Just trying to clear things up, sorry.

In the context of this subforum? Roleplaying games specifically means tabletop roleplaying games. They aren't videogames; there's a good chance they are books (or .pdf files); they often involve actual physical dice, paper, and pencils.

SangoProduction
2014-12-11, 11:40 PM
To be honest, I haven't played Tabletop games before. I have played a roleplay MUD (Multi-User Dungeon) before, however.
(Out of curiousity, who here has played a MUD before/is an active MUD player?)
I guess that's a very important difference, because MUDs are computer games, tabletop games aren't (as far as I can tell). But nevermind.
It also means that the opinions shown here are coming from a clueless newbie. Apologies.
Roll20 is a site for online table-top games. They are computer games :)



During my time in the MUD, I attempted some form of roleplay.
I tried to talk about game mechanics in a more 'roleplay' sense (e.g. 'sleeping' for logging out).

However, when it came to giving my character a personality, I was stuck.
How does this affect my actions in the game anyway?
No matter what my character's... character is supposed to be, I had to practice my skills/spells, explore the world, kill stuff, be nice to other players.
Being Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil or being assertive or shy or having dead parents doesn't seem to change any of that. So I can't kill this guy because my char's Good or what?

In some other languages, alignment more closely translates to "tendency". Thinking of them as that does drastically change one's connotation of it, and for the better, I believe. But as to Good not killing, just look at the paladin. The D&D uses objective "Good" as opposed to any other type of Good. Killing "Evil" is "Good". (Besides, rarely will people let alignment interfere with game mechanics.)
Also, conceivably, you don't "have" to do any of that stuff. You just probably won't be invited back if you're a **** to other players. You could also just have your character stay in town, if you want. It probably won't be much fun, but you can. This is why many ask for players to at the very least give their character some kind of motivation in a backstory or something. It's just more enjoyable to do so.



I have to explore this dungeon in a way that's dangerous and can kill me because my char's a curious person? I don't even have much flexibility in the way I talk to other players. For one thing, I have to constantly ask them questions about game mechanics. In addition. the moment I'm so much as slightly rude, the players will kill me, refuse to ressurect me when I'm dead, refuse to sell me that nice piece of equipment, etc.
I just couldn't figure out why my char's personality was important at all, or how I could do it without getting in the way of playing the game.

As a forumer once said (paraphrasing), there's a difference between the character suffering, and the player suffering.
Trouble is, how do you do the former without causing the latter?

Woah woah woah waoh! Um....OK...I'd recommend not playing D&D with those guys. (At the very least because of the idea of "slightly rude" are drastically different between you and the rest of the parties.) But, that really doesn't even refer to your character's personality.
I do have a horror story about one GM who just...like...for no explained reason , in just half a game session, took off my character's arm (I specialized in scythes...2 handed...), said I can't repair it, even with healing spells (wtf?). Reduced my speed by half PERMANENTLY because of lice, and made me lose paladin levels for killing an enemy. (I even came up to him afterwards to ask about all this bull) Needless to say, that was my first and last session with him.

To your question about can characters suffer without the player suffering: yes. In every way they CAN. It must, however, be fair. I made a stupid mistake, and rushed in to the crowd of 15 orcs? I probably deserved to die. My latest character has a self-imposed sickness to combat. It makes for a fairly interesting sequence of events, as each bit of combat drives him closer to insanity, and drawing out his alternate personality for longer and longer, but everyone's forced into it by circumstance. (And, my current group actually cares about character progression/story, rather than the main one as much, so it actually works.)

---
Now, to reiterate, the problem you are having is group cohesion, not character personality. The best way to fix that is to A) move to a different group, or B) talk to the group about it, and say it's annoying/not fun.
---
That part about your character exploring the dungeon that is dangerous, though. His only motivation is that he's curious? He's willing to risk life and limb based on curiosity? Instead of thinking of it as a question, think of it as a statement. My character is willing to risk life and limb based on his own curiosity. That suddenly says so much about your character. You just fill in the blanks.
Why is he curious? Does he have aspirations of being a Grand Cartographer? Is he addicted to the idea of new sights and sounds? And what caused him to want to (be a Grand Cartographer)? And what caused that? And you can keep going back as far as you like, as long as you feel it's good enough.

Sartharina
2014-12-12, 12:04 AM
When someone says RPG, I tend to think of MMORPGs (WoW, Maplestory and such), and those games actually have zero roleplay.

So what do you mean by RPG? Just trying to clear things up, sorry.Actually, they do have roleplaying involved. It just lacks sometimes lacks variance between characters, and in MMOs, the repetition and 'everyone else is doing this exact same thing' detract from this.

There are two kinds of roleplaying - the player-and-player roleplaying, which is rather rare, and the player-and-environment roleplaying, which the game is tailored to and around.

A big part of it is suspension of disbelief. I had a great time playing in both World of Warcraft and Guild Wars 2... and often found myself taking actions that made sense for my character, and filling in the gaps that the game couldn't account for (Such as an obviously-crazy werewolf wearing nothing more than a tabard and belt wanting to join the local militia). If you actually read the the text/listen to the dialogue, playing the games crafts a somewhat player-driven story... remember - it's not the destination that matters, but the journey to get there. (I can't remember how many hours I spent defending Ebonhawke in Guild Wars 2 not because I needed loot, karma, or experience, but simply because my character wanted to keep Ebonhawke safe.)


Tabletop games replace the game with a dynamic DM capable of telling a different story every time, with usually more flexibility in responding to characters created.

Knaight
2014-12-12, 04:36 AM
Roll20 is a site for online table-top games. They are computer games :)

They're about as much computer games as chess played by emailing moves to each other is. The computer is used primarily as a display, with a side job of providing random numbers as simulated dice and showing them to you, and maybe having a handful of macros and variables kept there and doing a bit of math occasionally. Everything that actually counts as game content is either spoken or written up by the people playing, as they are playing it.

SangoProduction
2014-12-13, 01:24 PM
They're about as much computer games as chess played by emailing moves to each other is. The computer is used primarily as a display, with a side job of providing random numbers as simulated dice and showing them to you, and maybe having a handful of macros and variables kept there and doing a bit of math occasionally. Everything that actually counts as game content is either spoken or written up by the people playing, as they are playing it.

Actually, it would be more astute to say it's like playing virtual Chess online, moving the pieces and the board through entirely virtual means. Without going into arguments about "What is a game?" a computer game is nothing more than a game on a computer, specifically, desktop, or laptop computers...as virtually any modern device that allows gaming is digital, and thus a "computer" but you get the idea.

Roll20 gives you the board, and set pieces. It gives you the tools you need to play the game as well. You still have to follow the rules of the program for where you move the piece, as lenient as those rules might be (You can't take them off the board, in most cases). Just like in Chess, you plan/discuss without regard to the medium you are playing on, as it's always in your head, but that makes it no less of a computer game, unless you mean everything has to be completely automated in order to be a computer game...but I think many would argue that wouldn't be a game.

Knaight
2014-12-13, 04:46 PM
Roll20 gives you the board, and set pieces. It gives you the tools you need to play the game as well. You still have to follow the rules of the program for where you move the piece, as lenient as those rules might be (You can't take them off the board, in most cases). Just like in Chess, you plan/discuss without regard to the medium you are playing on, as it's always in your head, but that makes it no less of a computer game, unless you mean everything has to be completely automated in order to be a computer game...but I think many would argue that wouldn't be a game.

Online chess generally at least implements move restrictions - it's not modeling a table and some chess pieces you can move how you can see fit, even if the moves aren't actually legal. I'm not saying that everything has to be completely automated, but there's a necessary degree of automation. After all, physical dice, physical sheets and Skype are totally usable for a game. Skype clearly isn't a videogame, even if you are playing an RPG over it. It's a tool that happens to be used to play a game in this instance. Roll 20 is a more specialized tool that is used to play a game, but it's still a tool used, not a game itself.

After all, the makers of Roll 20 aren't calling it a game.

Synar
2014-12-13, 05:01 PM
A key aspect that I don't think anyone mentionned yet in an explicit manner is that TTRPG are not just games, but also cooperative storycrafting tools. You are not just playing a game, you are crafting a story with your friends and your DM/GM, a story of which you are the main characters. And roleplaying is crucial to make such a story worthwhile and investing, to make you get immersed into your character and make such a character interesting and three dimensional, to create a tale woth telling and remembering, at least for yourself.

That is why some campaign journals are actually worth the read.



Also, keep in mind : such stories may not need to be mythic-feeling, serious, or even always in-character! They may be light-hearted, strange, full of reference and cliche, simple or out of control. But ultimately it doesn't matter if it is a tale of brutal dungeoncrawling, unknown land exploration, hilarious antics in space, or historically acurrate medieval political plots and deception, and it doesn't matter what kind of character you are playing. What matters is what it means to you - and to your friend.

And roleplaying - no matter the extent or the seriousness - is what enable you to transform a seance of rolling a bunch of dice on spreadsheets and spending time gaming with your friend into a story that you will remember with fondness.




EDIT: Trying to convey something in a foreign language and failing again and again at it is much more frustrating than one could imagine....

goto124
2014-12-14, 05:43 AM
Woah woah woah waoh! Um....OK...I'd recommend not playing D&D with those guys. (At the very least because of the idea of "slightly rude" are drastically different between you and the rest of the parties.) But, that really doesn't even refer to your character's personality.
I do have a horror story about one GM who just...like...for no explained reason , in just half a game session, took off my character's arm (I specialized in scythes...2 handed...), said I can't repair it, even with healing spells (wtf?). Reduced my speed by half PERMANENTLY because of lice, and made me lose paladin levels for killing an enemy. (I even came up to him afterwards to ask about all this bull) Needless to say, that was my first and last session with him.

Goodness. You describe, accurately, how I actually feel.

I'll be ranting a bit about the MUD I was referring to. If you guys want to hear more details, I'll be more than glad to create a thread in Gaming (Other).

This MUD was a delibrately realistic and difficult one. Realism in games is usually seen as something good, but this MUD takes it... further. Players (not just the immortals) had plenty of control over other players, including newbies (because realism). The players who were in control had a rather... medieval attitude to things. Like killing players for 'forbidden' skills, making newbies bow before the higher-ups (both literally and metaphorically), so on and so forth. It didn't help that dying left you at the complete mercy of other players, so being a loner wasn't really an option.

The MUD did have good points, such as high detail to almost everything, which is the aim of realism. But horrible players ruined it, and I suspect the system encourages 'jerk' behaviours. It's like being in real life, with all its energy-draining dreariness caused by your boss or parents or spouse or entire society expecting you to act in a very specific way. So much for games being meant to be escapism.



---
Now, to reiterate, the problem you are having is group cohesion, not character personality. The best way to fix that is to A) move to a different group, or B) talk to the group about it, and say it's annoying/not fun.
---


Knowing the players, I knew that option B was hopeless, so I took option A - I left the MUD, and joined a much more relaxed and newbie-friendly one. One of the best decisions I've ever made.
(The new MUD intentionally left out RP, so that new players don't get stressed by its confines.)



That part about your character exploring the dungeon that is dangerous, though. His only motivation is that he's curious? He's willing to risk life and limb based on curiosity? Instead of thinking of it as a question, think of it as a statement.

I was actually complaining about how I knew more than my character. Lots of information can be gleaned from external sources - websites and OOC channels. If you knew a place was dangerous, but your character doesn't, are you going to lose your equipment/stats/EXP to something stupid? Or forget RP and just avoid the place? I don't mind losing a couple of things to a dungeon, if it was actually my fault and the items lost are easy enough to replace. Not to something really stupid like keeping with RP. This goes back to the discussion about suboptimal choices, and having a human GM who can cater to you can help a lot.



To your question about can characters suffer without the player suffering: yes. In every way they CAN. It must, however, be fair. I made a stupid mistake, and rushed in to the crowd of 15 orcs? I probably deserved to die. My latest character has a self-imposed sickness to combat. It makes for a fairly interesting sequence of events, as each bit of combat drives him closer to insanity, and drawing out his alternate personality for longer and longer, but everyone's forced into it by circumstance. (And, my current group actually cares about character progression/story, rather than the main one as much, so it actually works.)

I've been in an FFRP thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?375552-Trog-s-Tavern-CCXLIX/page19) for a short while, and I must say I rather like the unique experience. Look at how Holy-hunter and I interact with each other. Holy-hunter describes the thoughts of his character (currently unnamed, let's call him John), which my character (Axanot) cannot read. This means that I know more than Axanot, and could choose to have her perform optimized actions based on MY greater knowledge. Instead, I have her react based on HER limited knowledge (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18529173&postcount=549), and I even described how she suffered (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18529949&postcount=551) for it. If I didn't want her to suffer, I could've just wrote things differently. I choose to let her, the character, suffer. I myself, the player, didn't suffer. It was fun.

I suppose not having to fear losing any resources had eased the player suffering. There is another possible reason though - playing with friends, who are real, thinking people. When you have weaved an epic, well-written campaign with your fellow friends, you wouldn't mind losing some gear or stuff. It's how I feel playing on the FFRP thread - and I'm playing with strangers who happen to be cooperative. It's amazing.

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-12-14, 03:29 PM
Welcome aboard. :smallsmile:

Raimun
2014-12-14, 08:31 PM
Not necessarily. If a person is serious about "role"-playing over "roll"-playing, then their choices should reflect the choices of the character. These may not necessarily be mechanically optimal. For example, if my character wants to be a master, world-class swordsman, then maybe I'd choose for him to be extremely narrow minded and focused on the path of the sword. Thus, he wouldn't take the pants-master skill even if it offered +3000 in footwork over other choices when another choice was the quick-blade draw skill which only offered a +97 to drawing the sword, and number crunchers decided that footwork bonuses were superior to drawing the sword bonuses.

An example of this in fiction could be from the Princess Bride, with Westley and Inigo. Inigo focused his entire damn life on the sword. Westley was significantly more well rounded, and ultimately a mechanically better fighter.

So, what if you want to play a character like Westley? That sounds like a lot of fun, actually.

I've heard many fighters in both fiction and real life make the statement that footwork is important. I have found out that tactical positioning and navigating the battle field is crucial in many games with tactical elements. That has been a revelation both in and out character, by the way. If great footwork makes you a better swordsman, you should practice your footwork. Pants-master skill sounds actually like a great roleplaying option. If it is stupid but in works in a fight, it is not stupid.

(Of course, focusing your abilities to summon "The Ultimate Swordsman(tm)" to do all of your fighting for you would not be an internally consistent choice in this case. Even if it was more powerful and/or optimal choice than wielding a sword yourself. Shooting them with a gun or spell for the same reason would be right out too. Those would be fine choices for a different character but not to a master swordsman.)

In fact, one of my long running characters was an elven swordsman who greatly benefitted from his highly advanced mobility. He could run circles around his opponents and moving around did actually make him fight better and deadlier with this sword. He was able to avoid gang ups with ease, he could charge more often and positioning was mandatory for his class abilities to work. He also had a fatalistic outlook in life and worshipped the three gods of fate, so you can just imagine how devoted swordsman a fatalistic, long living elf could be. He was a deadly swordsman and a blast to play both in and out of combat... especially since many people are of the opinion that the class I played was one of the weakest in the whole game. He was totally a deadly swordmaster and that was in fact one of the aspects of my initial character concept.

goto124
2014-12-15, 04:14 AM
He also had a fatalistic outlook in life and worshipped the three gods of fate, so you can just imagine how devoted swordsman a fatalistic, long living elf could be.

Could you explain how 'fatalism' affects roleplay?

It's one of the alignments in the horrible MUD I left, but due to the computer-game style I never really got to explore how it works.

pkoi
2014-12-15, 12:46 PM
So, what if you want to play a character like Westley? That sounds like a lot of fun, actually.

I've heard many fighters in both fiction and real life make the statement that footwork is important. I have found out that tactical positioning and navigating the battle field is crucial in many games with tactical elements. That has been a revelation both in and out character, by the way. If great footwork makes you a better swordsman, you should practice your footwork. Pants-master skill sounds actually like a great roleplaying option. If it is stupid but in works in a fight, it is not stupid.

(Of course, focusing your abilities to summon "The Ultimate Swordsman(tm)" to do all of your fighting for you would not be an internally consistent choice in this case. Even if it was more powerful and/or optimal choice than wielding a sword yourself. Shooting them with a gun or spell for the same reason would be right out too. Those would be fine choices for a different character but not to a master swordsman.)

In fact, one of my long running characters was an elven swordsman who greatly benefitted from his highly advanced mobility. He could run circles around his opponents and moving around did actually make him fight better and deadlier with this sword. He was able to avoid gang ups with ease, he could charge more often and positioning was mandatory for his class abilities to work. He also had a fatalistic outlook in life and worshipped the three gods of fate, so you can just imagine how devoted swordsman a fatalistic, long living elf could be. He was a deadly swordsman and a blast to play both in and out of combat... especially since many people are of the opinion that the class I played was one of the weakest in the whole game. He was totally a deadly swordmaster and that was in fact one of the aspects of my initial character concept.

I deliberately chose those examples to be silly. I was just trying to illustrate how a player might choose a mechanically inferior option, for the sake of roleplaying a character trying to be superior. That said, your character sounds great! In the end, if you're having fun, the group you're with is having fun, then you're doing it right.