PDA

View Full Version : Emotional Roleplaying



Kevka Palazzo
2007-06-18, 06:51 PM
In a lot of the RPGs that I play I always entertain the idea of getting ridiculously into character, to the point of forming emotional attachments to things and people in the game. The problem is I never really get a chance, or never put forth the effort.

I was reading the old Green Ronin Blue Rose rulebook, and when I read their description of emotional roleplaying (forming attachments et al...) I thought, "Do they really expect people to do this sort of thing?"

At that point I realized that I've never really seen a group really roleplay their characters to the point of realism.

My question is, is it realistic to expect players to truly get into character and roleplay? Is roleplaying an aspect that, in real life, just isn't emphasized? I have a hard time imagining either myself or any of my friends becoming attached to a character in a game and then expressing pain if they die.

Another question: is it really even healthy to be so attached to a fictional character? I see people that'll cry when a favorite character dies in a book or movie, but is it a good idea to be so attached to a character in a game?

Your thoughts and comments, please.

Garatolla
2007-06-18, 06:58 PM
I tend to freeform rp all the time, and it can be very easy to get attached to a character, especially if you put a lot of yourself into it.

To answer your questions:
1: I think it depends on the group, a lot of people don't find that stuff in their comfort zone, it's hard to randomly take on the persona of Dirk chopfast and not feel kinda silly for some people.

2: Potentially, yes - otherwise, no. There is nothing wrong with getting attached to a character, everyone has different levels of empathy after all. It's when you take it too far, like everything in life, that it becomes a problem. Heh, most the people I freeform with refer to the emotive responses to things happening to characters as 'character whiplash' random piece of trivia for you there =)

Call Me Siggy
2007-06-18, 06:59 PM
Yes. Yes, it is completely healthy, no matter how odd it sounds. People tend to react more when they're not completely in control (When the DM has the final say), or when they're simply a spectator. Look at how people react to a highly emotional movie, for example, how they'll scream "No! Don't!'...but there is no stopping it. Sometimes, it really matters more, and is easier to connect to, when you put a little of yourself into the character's personality. Not all of yourself, just a certain trait or aspect that makes it seem more...human.

Just my 2 cents.

Skjaldbakka
2007-06-18, 07:06 PM
Every character I play has some element of my personality in it, typically exaggerated. ex. I tend to roll with the flow, and not let much bother me. I played a character named Cassius, who was an extremely laid back fighter, who would frequently sit out fights if the rest of the party could deal (only to rush from a great distance if it seems necessary, ah Speed Burst+retarded movement rate+whirlwind attack).

Jannex
2007-06-18, 07:07 PM
Yes, it's absolutely reasonable and realistic to expect people to get deeply into character such that they become emotionally connected to what their character is experiencing, and attached to both the PC character and the NPCs that are important to him/her. Admittedly, D&D makes it harder to achieve that depth than some systems I've played (I'm a White-Wolfer first and foremost), but I've done it.

And yes, it's definitely "healthy" to become emotionally involved and attached to a fictional character. There's nothing wrong with it. Some people are Method actors. It's no more unhealthy than becoming emotionally engaged in the struggles of a character in a book or movie--and it's easier, because many people put a bit of themselves into their roleplaying characters. There's certainly nothing wrong with it.

It's all in an individual's (or a group's) play style. You say you can't imagine you or your friends growing very deeply involved in your characters' emotions or forming deep attachments. By contrast, I can't imagine playing a character as if she were some sprite in a video game with no emotional connections, motivations, feelings, or personal resonance. Well, I can imagine it--in the first D&D game I played, that's what my character was like, because I hadn't really gotten a sense of the setting and what there was to become emotionally attached to (and the DM was the type to kill off PCs), but it was... boring. The character had no real motivation, her personality was dull and flat, and it felt like I was playing a video game. I've since learned how to roleplay in D&D just as I would in any other system, and have had a great deal more fun with the game.

Maybe it's because I'm a writer. I approach my roleplaying characters in much the way I would approach a character in a story I was writing. I figure out her (or his) main personality traits, motivations, desires, general outlook on life, and a bit of background history. Once I have an intuitive sense of that, the character's actions just flow naturally from that base. Sometimes, I don't even have to think about what the character would do in a situation; I just know.

Some groups (and individuals) prefer a more beer-and-pretzels style to their games, and that's okay, if it works for them. It doesn't work all that well for me; I much prefer to know what my characters want, what they feel, and to feel it along with them. It keeps me interested in the game and in the story. It lets me have more fun. That's my take, at any rate.

Polarbeast
2007-06-18, 07:28 PM
My question is, is it realistic to expect players to truly get into character and roleplay? Is roleplaying an aspect that, in real life, just isn't emphasized? I have a hard time imagining either myself or any of my friends becoming attached to a character in a game and then expressing pain if they die.
I think it's not unhealthy to develop attachments, because that kind of thing leads to very warm memories down the road ("wow, remember that campaign? THAT was some of the best games we'd ever had"). Yet some people can get a little too weird about their characters. The answer, as it seems to be in many polar-opposite issues with roleplaying, seems to be balance.

I do like developed, roleplayed relationships within parties, because it generates better, more closely tailored storylines (from a good DM, anyway) and creates more heroics. One is more likely to really think about consequences if one likes his or her character, rather than just "going for it."

Sometimes it hurts. Years ago in an Earthdawn game (a game which rewards character development and backstory) my wife worked very diligently to create a character she loved, who was an extension of her personality. The GM killed her off, and not well; it wasn't even a "she perished fighting alongside her friends against the BBEG" or "she saved the village with her heroic death," it was the GM saying, "hey, the dice came up twenty, can't help it" during a minor, needless encounter that wasn't supposed to be combat. She was very bitter for a long time after that, and found it difficult to play again. Yes, she could simply ignore that GM and play the character elsewhere, but it wasn't the same. Someone KILLED her once, casually.

My current group is the opposite, tending toward game mechanics rather than flavor, which is fun for now; we aren't too attached to our characters, and have more luxury to experiment with builds and combos. Eventually, however, I'm going to want to return to really developing relationships with the other characters... to better the story.

PnP Fan
2007-06-18, 09:56 PM
Realistic? This completely depends on who's at the table. If you sit down with a group that's strictly interested in a "beer 'n pretzels" kind of game, then it's completely unrealistic to expect them to do it on their own. You might ask them, or talk about it, but chances are, they won't do it, or aren't that interested. If you sit down every week with a group that's interested in detailed story, and character development (not character sheet development) then chances are, you're already doing "immersive" RP to some extent. Because D&D has a strong heroic background, and tends to be fairly crunchy, it promotes right brain activity, which is not particularly conducive to left brain type stuff (acting, poetry, drama, etc. . . ). Not that it doesn't happen, but there are other games that attract the acting/poetry crowd more (White Wolf stuff in particular).
Now, having said that, you will always find that most people have some kind of persona when they play that is not wholely their own personality, but it's usually not the "immersive" RP experience you are talking about. (I like the word immersive because it's less likely to attract the negative response that words like "emo" will attract. Plus, I'm way to old to even identify with this whole "emo" thing. . .)
Now, healthy? That depends. A few minutes of sorrow for a character that you worked hard on for the last year's worth of Fridays? Sure, that's probably not too bad. But if you've got someone suffering depression or getting angry or violent over character death, then that person has issues that need to be dealt with. And those issues aren't likely to be related to "immersive" RP, but to something else in their lives. In my group we tend to look at character death as an opportunity to make a new character and play something different. *shrug*

*plink, plink*
my two copper

Xuincherguixe
2007-06-18, 10:02 PM
Reasonable? Sure.

As far as emotionally healthy goes I'm probably not the best person to talk about that sort of thing :P

Jannex
2007-06-18, 10:15 PM
Because D&D has a strong heroic background, and tends to be fairly crunchy, it promotes right brain activity, which is not particularly conducive to left brain type stuff (acting, poetry, drama, etc. . . ).

You've got your sides of the brain mixed up, there. (Left is math, right is art.) But otherwise, yeah; D&D does tend to encourage the more analytical, number-crunchy side of things, as opposed to the more creative and dramatic side, you're right.

de-trick
2007-06-18, 10:26 PM
it can be healthy but not us forget those cheesy cartoons that the chicks character died and she killed herself

thats going to deep into character bond though

Jannex
2007-06-18, 10:46 PM
it can be healthy but not us forget those cheesy cartoons that the chicks character died and she killed herself

thats going to deep into character bond though

...Let's not drag those tracts into this. That kind of delusional fearmongering has nothing to do with our hobby. Nobody who doesn't already have unrelated psychological and emotional factors is going to kill himself over a roleplaying game.

I maintain that connecting emotionally with your character and his/her experiences and struggles is in no way unhealthy, in and of itself.

JackMage666
2007-06-18, 10:56 PM
I've only actually done this once, to be honest. It wasn't awkward for the DM and myself, but the other players thought it was really awkward. I dunno, I actually enjoyed it.

It probably helps that myself and everyone I play with are Theatre kids...

Ravyn
2007-06-19, 12:18 AM
It's perfectly reasonable, if you've got the kind of group that works for. Tends to happen more often with theatrical types, writers, and the kinds of people who get completely immersed in books/movies/what-have-you. I find it good for the RPing experience, though it can get a tad frustrating if the other players aren't the type (those funny looks get irritating after a while).

Oftentimes, what comes into play is a principle I've noticed.... that there's a sense, both in the real world and in the games, that what people hang up on is as much what they're missing as anything. I'm no psychologist, but I think the reason why people who do that sort of thing react more strongly to character death than people reading books is that there's a stronger sense of finality. You can always read the book again, so the dead protagonist/supporting cast member/what-have-you isn't as permanently gone, if that makes any sense, but the game flows onward like life, and what's gone, whether it be a friend or an opportunity, stays that way. And there's also a sense in which, if you have the right group, it's a safe place to be all emotive, since it's not you. I know a bunch of people who're utterly calm in person but tend towards intense emotion IC.

Forevergrey
2007-06-19, 12:46 AM
I rend my clothes and put on sackcloth whenever I roll a one.

PnP Fan
2007-06-19, 01:13 AM
You've got your sides of the brain mixed up, there. (Left is math, right is art.) But otherwise, yeah; D&D does tend to encourage the more analytical, number-crunchy side of things, as opposed to the more creative and dramatic side, you're right.

Ooops!
Sorry, I tend to think
Left = Political Liberal = Art Crowd,
while Right = Political Conservative = Non-Art Crowd
Which, you are correct, it's the other way around.
(not pushing any political agendas here, don't care where anyone else sits, just the weird association my brain makes)

The other point I was trying to make, but perhaps didn't come through so well is that the heroic nature of D&D tends to push folks into a paradigm where the Players are all on the same side. The very nature of the standard four character party screams out "teamwork". So, characters tend to argue more on methodology than on the general nature of their actions. Other games (again White Wolf comes to mind) are not necessarily predicated upon "teamwork" being important, or even desirable. Most of the best Vampire games I've been a part of involved PC's plotting against one another. (Incidentally, one of the reasons why I'm very careful about who I play Vampire with.)

Jannex
2007-06-19, 01:39 AM
Ooops!
Sorry, I tend to think
Left = Political Liberal = Art Crowd,
while Right = Political Conservative = Non-Art Crowd
Which, you are correct, it's the other way around.
(not pushing any political agendas here, don't care where anyone else sits, just the weird association my brain makes)

No worries; we all do stuff like that sometimes. :smallwink:


The other point I was trying to make, but perhaps didn't come through so well is that the heroic nature of D&D tends to push folks into a paradigm where the Players are all on the same side. The very nature of the standard four character party screams out "teamwork". So, characters tend to argue more on methodology than on the general nature of their actions. Other games (again White Wolf comes to mind) are not necessarily predicated upon "teamwork" being important, or even desirable. Most of the best Vampire games I've been a part of involved PC's plotting against one another. (Incidentally, one of the reasons why I'm very careful about who I play Vampire with.)

Hm. I see what you're saying, I think, but in my experience, that's really not what makes the difference. While Vampire often tends toward player-vs-player, other White Wolf games (specifically I'm thinking of Changeling, which I play a great deal) are much more "team-oriented" as you describe, with the PCs being the "heroes" struggling against the big-bad-whatever. I've played in a Changeling game with an oathbonded circle of PCs in an epic conflict with the forces of existential Darkness, and that game had some profoundly emotionally-resonant elements, with many of the players (myself included) connecting deeply with their characters and facing some psychologically-difficult (not to say "angsty") decisions. One character had to ritually sacrifice her son in order to save the world. It was rough.

In my experience, the difference is that D&D is a very mechanics-intensive game, whereas other systems (like White Wolf) are a bit lighter on the rules. I think it's easier to focus on character and story when you've got fewer numbers to worry about. (Disclaimer: I'm not saying you can't do both, because you can. I think it's just easier when the numbers don't take up as much brain-space.) Even beyond that, the focus of the two games is very different, in my experience; White Wolf core books tend to devote several chapters to setting, atmosphere, and characterization, whereas the "character description" chapter of the D&D PHB was about six pages. While D&D certainly can be more than its "kick in the door, kill the monster, loot the bodies" stereotype, I think that making the game more emotionally-immersive than that takes more effort than it would in some other systems.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-19, 03:18 AM
You can certainly invest emotionally in a character in an RPG, just like you can invest emotionally in a character in a movie.

It's just a matter of getting people's buy-in. Of saying "we are going to treat this as if it is really happening." The problem is, a lot of the traditional baggage of roleplaying gets in the way of that. If you're busy worrying about how to win the next fight against a level-appropriate encounter, you're not worrying about how your character feels about having the fate of the world on his shoulders.

Also: I don't agree with Jannex that being out of control helps you connect emotionally. For a lot of people, being out of control just makes you focus all your energies on getting back *in* control.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-19, 03:28 AM
Even beyond that, the focus of the two games is very different, in my experience; White Wolf core books tend to devote several chapters to setting, atmosphere, and characterization, whereas the "character description" chapter of the D&D PHB was about six pages.

I don't remember reading anything about "characterization" in a White Wolf book. They'd occasionally say things like "remember, this is a roleplaying game not a rollplaying game", but basically the vampire "character" chapters consisted of a big list of powers, just like the D&D spell list.

Last_resort_33
2007-06-19, 08:19 AM
unfortuantely they don't split it up into rules chapers and characterisation chapters. They just mash all the fluff and the crunch together so that one cannot find any of the information desired.

However, no-matter HOW the books are written, White Wolf games do tend to end up with the players developing more of an affinity with their characters, else if you just played it as a "rules only" game, it would get very dull, very quickly. The problem with D&D is that there is so much crunch, that until you know the rules very well (or have a DM with a style that means that you don't need to) then you end up playing without so much characterisation, as everyone is concentrating on the rules. That is one of my favourate things about "core only" games, People don't have to worry about additional rules, they only have to use what is in the PHB, thus alllowing more time for characterisation. conversely, there are those who play almost entirely for the rules, for these people, the new books to try out new combinations are essential to keep their interest.

I become quite attatched to my characters. I like to watch them grow, and I do get upset when they can't get what they want (even if that is not nececerrily the best for them)

If we don't get emotionally involved with our character, then aren't we essentially playing a very complex version of Warhammer Fantasy Battle*but with fewer minitatures?

I apologise if my spelling is not too great or if I ramble, but I have had a few drinks.:smallsmile:

*I'll go wash my mouth out now

Guinaur
2007-06-19, 09:12 AM
I've always wanted my players to get "in character" allot more and roleplay more, but one of the problems that I have seen is that they become embarrassed when they roleplay (verbaly) in front of eachother, which usually turns to joking or even irretation. The irretation is when a player wants to do something which fits to his characters personality, but it isn't very good for the party. Now instead of the rest of the party roleplaying with and doing something about it "in-character", they attack him/her out-of-character about not being a team-player or something similar. Some of my more childish players do stupid things and say: "thats how my character is". I would love to see some more emotional roleplaying at my sessions, but its difficult.

Zim
2007-06-19, 02:48 PM
I've always tried to RP my characters to the limit of my ability and the group's tolerance. That seems pretty limited with my current group, though. They're experienced D&D players, but I think they're more Roll players than Role players.

I start out with a loosely defined character with some schtick/mannerisms and take it from there. As the campaign progresses and shapes the character's experiences, I can develope a more in depth personality for the character. Sometimes, I get attached to them, other times not. It depends on how into the campaign I am and how much spotlight time I get.

So far, I've had 3 D&D characters that I've had what I would call an emotional bond to:

Gazgrim: Half-orc Barbarian. A real stranger in a strange land. I enjoyed the RP applications of playing a steppeland tribesman adventuring in more settled lands. His disgust with civilized culture (eg. multi-story buildings -you mean people actually live ON TOP of one another?) called into question who the real barbarians were. He also wrote haiku orcish as his contribution to the campaign journal. He was a fun, if simple character to play.

Xuttah the Resplendant: A hedonistic half copper dragon dervish. Raised in a temple of Bast, I played him as a slightly licentious fop mixed with a middle-eastern type noble. I used the speach pattern of Count Fenring from Dune (Hmmm?) and made exaggerated hand gestures whenever he spoke or acted. His romantic indiscretions often made the party uncomfortable (dragons are not too picky about their mates, hence all the half dragons. Combine that with a temple raised follower of a pleasure goddess...yikes!), so I kind of played that down. It was neat to play a fighter who was not just a mindless brute.

ZIM!: Kobold Artificer. Current character in STAP. Current group has a bunch of noobs mixed in with the Roll players, so I can't totally play over the top without getting strange looks. That's dissappointing since his schtick is very much like the TV character he's based on. Yes, yes, milksucker. Go and maintain your constant body temperature somewhere else. Victory for ZIM! Maybe when the rest of the group tries to RP a bit more, I can do the same.

herrhauptmann
2007-06-19, 03:22 PM
Out of my own experience, me and my friends tended to actually role play the most, when we had the fewest books to work with.
2nd ed. All we had was a PHB, which took a lot of cooperation out of character, and since all our adventures were out of the DM's head (sometimes novels he read, sometimes his own design) we were much less worried about building the most powerful character possible, and more interested with enjoying our characters.

My own experience: A human fighter who caught lycanthropy as an STD. That sucked. Think its bad when the woman doesn't tell you she's married? This is way worse. My friends made it worse by the constant teasing about it. Still, it helped me RP my character falling into depression when he found out. (Though the fact I almost lost my job at the time helped too)

Another, again a fighter, but he was so much of myself. (Actually didn't want to fight all the time, just wanted to sit back,read and take it easy.) 16int and a 15 str. My character and another were 'childhood friends' so it was easy to RP with each other. With others, I didn't do so well. Up until a one line description from teh DM made me think. "If this had happened to me, what would I actually do." I ended up with my bookworm fighter having a massive crush on Dove of the 7 sisters.

Well that's my rambling post for the day.

Dragor
2007-06-19, 03:23 PM
It's perfectly fine to be attached to a character- in fact, maybe it should be encouraged. I've been fairly attached to a few of my characters, and it hasn't done me any harm (much? :smalltongue: ). It's a healthy mind which can empathise with people who are, mostly, an extension of their inner self. It reflects how you can sympathize and care for people easily.

Two cents! Dun-dun DUN!

Indon
2007-06-19, 03:43 PM
My question is, is it realistic to expect players to truly get into character and roleplay? Is roleplaying an aspect that, in real life, just isn't emphasized? I have a hard time imagining either myself or any of my friends becoming attached to a character in a game and then expressing pain if they die.

Another question: is it really even healthy to be so attached to a fictional character? I see people that'll cry when a favorite character dies in a book or movie, but is it a good idea to be so attached to a character in a game?


This is not a question that exists in roleplaying alone.

Many actors (I feel acting is a similar field to roleplaying in many ways) have differing opinions on how emotionally involved they should be when acting out (i.e. roleplaying) their characters. Some draw from experiences in their own life in order to increase their emotional involvement, while others focus more on the mechanical aspects of acting (to the point where you're going to need some eyedrops if you expect to cry as your character).

My point is, this is a pretty old debate, and there doesn't look like a clear-cut answer exists. Do what you think is fun, and try not to weird out your friends.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-19, 04:10 PM
The irretation is when a player wants to do something which fits to his characters personality, but it isn't very good for the party. Now instead of the rest of the party roleplaying with and doing something about it "in-character", they attack him/her out-of-character about not being a team-player or something similar.

The problem is that D&D is predicated on the idea of trying to overcome challenges with limited resources. If a player makes an in-character decision which further limits your resources, it actually screws the game balance.

The most obvious example is making the in-character decision that actually, your character doesn't care about material wealth. So you wind up at level twenty with no magic items because you never bothered looting.

Jannex
2007-06-19, 04:30 PM
Also: I don't agree with Jannex that being out of control helps you connect emotionally. For a lot of people, being out of control just makes you focus all your energies on getting back *in* control.

I don't think I actually made that claim anywhere.


I don't remember reading anything about "characterization" in a White Wolf book. They'd occasionally say things like "remember, this is a roleplaying game not a rollplaying game", but basically the vampire "character" chapters consisted of a big list of powers, just like the D&D spell list.

Check the Character Creation chapter, specifically pages 108-9 of the Revised Vampire core. Like most White Wolf books, it has an entire page of just questions to ask yourself about your character, in order to develop his/her personality more deeply. The section ends with:

"A character without motivation might as well not have survived the Embrace. Knowing what drives your character is central to understanding who she is. A vampire's values are often very different from those of a normal human; the death and rebirth of the Embrace can work a great change on an individual's personality. Think about where your character has been and where you'd like to see her go (or where she would like to go). Consider her Nature and Demeanor--do they suggest an ultimate goal? Once you have an idea of what it is your character wants to achieve, you're one step closer to making her a full-fledged personality of her own."

Beyond that, there are entire chapters devoted to description and discussion of the setting and how the prospective PC will interact with it. There's less crunch in White Wolf in general, and a larger portion of the writing is devoted to the IC perspective.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-19, 04:38 PM
I don't think I actually made that claim anywhere.

Bugger, must have been somebody else. Didn't mean to misattribute,


Check the Character Creation chapter, specifically pages 108-9 of the Revised Vampire core. Like most White Wolf books, it has an entire page of just questions to ask yourself about your character, in order to develop his/her personality more deeply. The section ends with:

"A character without motivation might as well not have survived the Embrace. Knowing what drives your character is central to understanding who she is. A vampire's values are often very different from those of a normal human; the death and rebirth of the Embrace can work a great change on an individual's personality. Think about where your character has been and where you'd like to see her go (or where she would like to go). Consider her Nature and Demeanor--do they suggest an ultimate goal? Once you have an idea of what it is your character wants to achieve, you're one step closer to making her a full-fledged personality of her own."

Now compare that to the page count devoted to the combat system and the powers lists.

Vampire pays lip-service to characterisation, but ultimately it doesn't support it any better than D&D.


Beyond that, there are entire chapters devoted to description and discussion of the setting and how the prospective PC will interact with it. There's less crunch in White Wolf in general, and a larger portion of the writing is devoted to the IC perspective.

D&D has entire *books* devoted to description of the setting and how the prospective PC will interact with it.

I'd also point out that "setting" and "characterisation" are not the same thing, and conflating the two is one of the biggest problems with WW games.

Brother_Franklin
2007-06-19, 04:58 PM
I began my roleplaying carrer with Paranoia. And while many WW and other players consider it a "light" and "fun" game without much roleplaying oppurtunity I found that it's given me a very deep roleplaying perspective.

First of all in Paranoia, you barely know your stats. Therefore, you have to make all your descisions based on what the GM tells you your player knows. All to often in DnD, I know the first three spells I want to cast before I sit down at the table. Thus, your sense of what you can do is tied closely to what you can imagen. This gets you trying to see everysquare inch of the world.

Second, in Paranoia, almost all the rewards are RP derived. You don't gain a level for killing the commies. You gain security clearance for convincing the computer your killed the commies.

Third, It's assumed you are going to kill your buddies. Thus their isn't any peer pressure to be a meatsheild, artilery piece, or healbot. None of this RPing killing the party. (How ticked was my party when I got are guide NPC drunk- Hey, she was boring and I'm a cleric of friken OLIDAMMARA. I stole her stuff, isn't that enough for you?)

Finnally, there is a very thin line between player and charater in Paranoia. Your charater is confused, nearly powerless, and thinks everything is trying to get him. The player is confused, nearly powerless, and is pretty sure everthing is trying to make him lose.

So for me roleplaying is just so much more fun. ANd it is possible to roleplay within DnD. You just have to be shure your roleplaying a bad mamajama that can take out a lot of Goblins. If you want to roleplay something else play another game.

Jannex
2007-06-19, 05:21 PM
Bugger, must have been somebody else. Didn't mean to misattribute,


Thanks.


Now compare that to the page count devoted to the combat system and the powers lists.

Rules take longer to describe, because they don't involve any input from the prospective player. For a better comparison, compare the page count (and page percentage) in White Wolf devoted to the combat system and powers lists versus the page count and percentage devoted to the same in D&D.


Vampire pays lip-service to characterisation, but ultimately it doesn't support it any better than D&D.

No offense, but it sounds like you've been playing with the wrong group. Otherwise, try another White Wolf game, like Mage or Changeling. They're even more character-oriented than Vampire.


D&D has entire *books* devoted to description of the setting and how the prospective PC will interact with it.

So does White Wolf. Lots of them. Many of those supplements have little to no crunch.


I'd also point out that "setting" and "characterisation" are not the same thing, and conflating the two is one of the biggest problems with WW games.

But "setting" and "characterization" do significantly affect one another, which was the point I was trying to get across--especially when the setting descriptions are presented from an IC perspective, which gives the reader a sense of how characters within that world (like their PCs) view it.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-19, 05:33 PM
Rules take longer to describe, because they don't involve any input from the prospective player. For a better comparison, compare the page count (and page percentage) in White Wolf devoted to the combat system and powers lists versus the page count and percentage devoted to the same in D&D.

Oh absolutely. D&D is *far* more focused on combat and powers than Vampire, but Vampire is far more focused on combat and powers than, say, The Burning Wheel or Dogs in the Vineyard (neither of which contain any setting information, incidentally).


No offense, but it sounds like you've been playing with the wrong group. Otherwise, try another White Wolf game, like Mage or Changeling. They're even more character-oriented than Vampire.

That's the thing, vampire isn't character oriented, it's plot-oriented. The game isn't geared towards characters making meaningful decisions, it's geared towards NPCs having grand intrigues.


So does White Wolf. Lots of them. Many of those supplements have little to no crunch.

I know, the point was that D&D is scarcely lacking in the setting department.


But "setting" and "characterization" do significantly affect one another, which was the point I was trying to get across--especially when the setting descriptions are presented from an IC perspective, which gives the reader a sense of how characters within that world (like their PCs) view it.

Ah, that's where I think we disagree. I think that "setting" is very much external to the character. In fact, I think it distracts from it.

If I am an ordinary man who is suddenly swept up into a nightmare world of blood and damnation, then the structure of the Camarilla, the war with the Sabbat, the Circle of Seven, the destruction of the Salubri, the rise of the Antedeluvians mean precisely *nothing* to me.

Vampire bills itself as a game of "personal horror", but it depersonalises the whole thing. It posits a vast society of vampires in which what's *really* important isn't whether your character conceals his true nature from his sister, but who becomes Prince of New York.

Jannex
2007-06-19, 05:58 PM
Oh absolutely. D&D is *far* more focused on combat and powers than Vampire, but Vampire is far more focused on combat and powers than, say, The Burning Wheel or Dogs in the Vineyard (neither of which contain any setting information, incidentally).

That's the thing, vampire isn't character oriented, it's plot-oriented. The game isn't geared towards characters making meaningful decisions, it's geared towards NPCs having grand intrigues.

I find it interesting that when I said "White Wolf," you started right in on Vampire. What about the other White Wolf games? As I mentioned, Mage and Changeling have less of a tendency to get swept up in the "kewl powerz" and get more involved with the individual characters' thoughts and struggles, in my experience.


Ah, that's where I think we disagree. I think that "setting" is very much external to the character. In fact, I think it distracts from it.

If I am an ordinary man who is suddenly swept up into a nightmare world of blood and damnation, then the structure of the Camarilla, the war with the Sabbat, the Circle of Seven, the destruction of the Salubri, the rise of the Antedeluvians mean precisely *nothing* to me.

There's also a difference between "setting" and "metaplot." Both, however, provide a much-needed backdrop for characterization. No character exists in a vacuum, after all. And if one of those elements, like the war with the Sabbat, has had a direct impact on a character's life, then it will mean something to him.


Vampire bills itself as a game of "personal horror", but it depersonalises the whole thing. It posits a vast society of vampires in which what's *really* important isn't whether your character conceals his true nature from his sister, but who becomes Prince of New York.

Again, that sounds more like a matter that depends very much on the individual gaming group involved. Vampire can be about either of those things. Just like Mage can be about the War for Reality or just trying to get by and find one's own path to Ascension. Just like Changeling can be about the disappearance of the High King and the resulting civil war, or just trying to find a balance between your mortal life and your fae self without going mad or Forgetting yourself. This is all very group-specific.

Yiel
2007-06-19, 07:16 PM
Emotional roleplaying can be a good thing in a game... but can also be a bad thing. The group I play with are quite dramatic and we really get into the back stories of our characters (no matter which game we play). This has resulted in some very good campaigns, and some very hilarious encounters.

Our youngest member (18) gets far too involved with his characters though. If another character does anything he doesn't like, he will often verbally attack the player, then break character within the game to Meta-game and turn the plot more to his favour. Our DMs usually don't stand for this, which results in him sulking for about fifteen minutes before he moves on.

Basically, there are ups and downs to getting more involved with your characters... but in general I wouldn't enjoy playing as much without it.

Kevka Palazzo
2007-06-19, 07:20 PM
I recently got into White Wolf, but I've talked to enough people about it to think that Mage is the big "crunch" series in the game. I've only got nWoD and Werewolf: The Forsaken, though, none of the others.

I enjoy the system, though gameplay-wise it's really clunky (I don't like having to roll all those d10s without something automatic :smallmad: ). It seems much more roleplay-oriented than many of the other systems than the ones I've played.

Jannex
2007-06-19, 07:36 PM
I recently got into White Wolf, but I've talked to enough people about it to think that Mage is the big "crunch" series in the game. I've only got nWoD and Werewolf: The Forsaken, though, none of the others.

I much prefer oWoD. It's definitely worth giving a try, if you can find it.

....
2007-06-19, 08:12 PM
I think you need the right group of people for serious roleplay.

In my main D&D group, where I'm a player, we're mostly just kicking down doors and fighting monsters. To spice it up I made a Rincewind type character who is always screaming and hiding whenever fights get started.

I do manage to sneak in some character development, though. Recently a chimera broke out of a cage in the middle of a town and my wizard was the only one there. By now we were about level eight, so I fired an acid arrow at it to distract it from the kids it was about to eat. When the chimera turned on the wizard, he got scared and ran screaming into an ally where the rest of the part killed it. He spent the rest of the day being hailed as champion of Dirtville.

In an older game that I was DMing, though, we only had three players for the vast majority of the time and would play every weekend. My three players actually became very close, in-character, and started to roleplay without even thinking about it.

Once they were discussing how to stop one of the BBEGs who was about to attack a group of peasants. One of the players said something (she was roleplaying an innocent, naive monk) about how maybe they could just talk the BBEG out of it, and the bard shouted back angrily that they couldn't do that, that they had to fight him.

And whats weird is none of us got freaked out by her yelling at the monk, because its exactly what the character would have done.

Diggorian
2007-06-19, 08:23 PM
Fully acknowledging my Method Actor bias, I'd say it's healthy to get emotionally into character. Just as stretching your muscles is good, so is your imagination. Creativity is it's own reward. What is it to be a hobgoblin that differs from being human? A troll? An awakened dire badger? A woman? I'm studying psychology so this fascinates me.

It presents another level of challenge to the game: how do I defeat this encounter in a way my PC would? Also, the stakes are raised when you really "like" your character. A dead tank can be replaced with another tank, but replacing a character with a similar character sorta cheapens the new one.

PnP Fan
2007-06-20, 01:39 AM
Continuing with the semi-hijacking of this thread, in a comparison of WW vs. DnD games I offer the following thoughts:

Setting and Characterization: A character cannot exist without setting. Even if you ignore all of the big metaplot stuff with oWoD, you still have the basic assumption that the setting for the game is (usually) a world that is like our own modern day, and thus you have a character that is based off of modern day assumptions (whether the character is a product of the 20th/21st century, or of the 5th century, he still has to interact with the modern era). Truthfully, I think that the modern era setting that most of the WW games assume is why you tend to get more deeply developed characters. I'm guessing that none of the roleplayers alive today have ever lived in the medieval time period, or have ever saved a kingdom and received large material rewards for it. But I'm willing to bet that we all know what it's like to live in the modern era, and the problems associated with it. So more immersive RP in a modern day setting shouldn't be much of a surprise.

Team elements in oWoD: Okay, yes, you've got the Oathcircles of changling, the Packs of Werewolf, some kind of group for Mages, and Packs/Covens(?) for Vampire. However, their exists a lot of built in anger/tension into these groups. Changeling is the lightest, but the class struggles between the Sidhe and the Commoners is part of the setting (though admittedly, I've never seen it played up). In Werewolf, put a Get of Fenris, a Black Fury, a Red Talon, a Glass Walker, a Silver Fang and a Shadow Lord all in the same room and let me know who survives. Vampire is all about politics and back stabbing, regardless of clan, though Ventrue and Brujah are the first to come to mind, and there is sort of a social class structure of upper and lower clans as well (highlighted in Vampire Dark Ages I think). Mage is a little more team oriented, only because the Traditions are losing. Ultimately, any of the Traditions would gladly switch places with the Technocracy to be the rulers of reality.

Personal horror: When Vampire was first published in the early 90's, the metaplot didn't exist. There was some history, and some vague references to the plots of the Antediluvians (sp) but it was just backdrop. Most of the metaplot didn't really come along until Second edition, and wasn't really well defined until Revised. So, when the game initally started, it really could be played as a game of personal horror. I think when they started introducing metaplot, folks really enjoyed reading it, and doing the detective work in trying to piece it all together (okay, I enjoyed doing that. . . ;-) and it helped their sales tremendously, thus taking over the game.

Other Characterization in WW:
Nature vs. Demeanor. DnD has no equivalent structure. The closest thing is alignment, and it's pretty two dimensional (to the point where you can actually plot it on a piece of paper). WW games were the first (I believe) to use the idea that the way your character ACTS isn't necessarily the way he IS internally, and to give you rewards for playing both aspects well.
Fiction: While it isn't strictly an RP mechanic, the game books are flooded with fiction, mostly written in the first person pespective, much of which is misinformation, and covered in personal opinion. I think this helps players get a feel for how an individual character thinks/feels about the various things that go on in the WoD.
Your "class" equivalent tends to come with a prepackaged personality and set of political views. To some this can be a deterent, to others it can be a useful guide, regardless it forces you to decide whether you "fit in" with the stereotype or not.
Humanity/Rage/etc. ..: WW wasn't the first to come up with the idea that your RP choices affect your character's sanity/stability/social ability (I'm thinking Cyberpunk 2020 had something) but it's definitely an important part of the games. This stuff, humanity in particular, was intended to be the "personal horror" aspect of the game (as you watch your character's downward spiral into NPC-dom).

Crunchy pages: Also, when the WW system first came out, the combat section what about the shortest chapter in the book (Vampire), because combat wasn't intended to be the focus of the game. I think this appealed to folks because they could be snobs and talk about the high art of roleplaying vs. rollplaying (yes, we all fell into this at first, admit it to yourself if you don't want to admit it to others)

These are some of the things that, I think, help define WW games as immersive RP games, vs. the high crunch DnD system. This is not to say that you can't do immersive RP in DnD, but the system doesn't particularly lend itself to doing so.

*plink plink*
2 more copper.
g'night.

Dean Fellithor
2007-06-20, 02:08 AM
Having an emotional bond with your character is Neccisary for RPGs, they give you a "What would HE do?" feel, because you dont want to be playing characters that mimic yourself.

Jannex
2007-06-20, 02:09 AM
^*agrees with everything PnP_Fan said*

Thanks for taking the time and effort to type out that remarkably cogent and thorough analysis. Well done.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-20, 08:26 AM
Continuing with the semi-hijacking of this thread, in a comparison of WW vs. DnD games I offer the following thoughts:

Setting and Characterization: A character cannot exist without setting. Even if you ignore all of the big metaplot stuff with oWoD, you still have the basic assumption that the setting for the game is (usually) a world that is like our own modern day, and thus you have a character that is based off of modern day assumptions (whether the character is a product of the 20th/21st century, or of the 5th century, he still has to interact with the modern era). Truthfully, I think that the modern era setting that most of the WW games assume is why you tend to get more deeply developed characters. I'm guessing that none of the roleplayers alive today have ever lived in the medieval time period, or have ever saved a kingdom and received large material rewards for it. But I'm willing to bet that we all know what it's like to live in the modern era, and the problems associated with it. So more immersive RP in a modern day setting shouldn't be much of a surprise.

Whether a character can exist without a setting depends very much on what you define as "setting".

As far as I'm concerned the "setting" of the World of Darkness isn't the modern world - those bits are assumed knowledge - the "setting" of the World of Darkness is the detailed society of supernaturals the books are devoted to describing.

It's that setting which I think is superfluous, and detracts from characterization.


Team elements in oWoD: Okay, yes, you've got the Oathcircles of changling, the Packs of Werewolf, some kind of group for Mages, and Packs/Covens(?) for Vampire. However, their exists a lot of built in anger/tension into these groups. Changeling is the lightest, but the class struggles between the Sidhe and the Commoners is part of the setting (though admittedly, I've never seen it played up). In Werewolf, put a Get of Fenris, a Black Fury, a Red Talon, a Glass Walker, a Silver Fang and a Shadow Lord all in the same room and let me know who survives. Vampire is all about politics and back stabbing, regardless of clan, though Ventrue and Brujah are the first to come to mind, and there is sort of a social class structure of upper and lower clans as well (highlighted in Vampire Dark Ages I think). Mage is a little more team oriented, only because the Traditions are losing. Ultimately, any of the Traditions would gladly switch places with the Technocracy to be the rulers of reality.

And does this support or detract from character development?


Personal horror: When Vampire was first published in the early 90's, the metaplot didn't exist. There was some history, and some vague references to the plots of the Antediluvians (sp) but it was just backdrop. Most of the metaplot didn't really come along until Second edition, and wasn't really well defined until Revised. So, when the game initally started, it really could be played as a game of personal horror. I think when they started introducing metaplot, folks really enjoyed reading it, and doing the detective work in trying to piece it all together (okay, I enjoyed doing that. . . ;-) and it helped their sales tremendously, thus taking over the game.

Vampire always had the Camarilla, it always had the Sabbat, and the Sabbat were detailed *long* before second edition. It was always about cities and princes and prestation, never about anything really *personal*.


Other Characterization in WW:
Nature vs. Demeanor. DnD has no equivalent structure. The closest thing is alignment, and it's pretty two dimensional (to the point where you can actually plot it on a piece of paper). WW games were the first (I believe) to use the idea that the way your character ACTS isn't necessarily the way he IS internally, and to give you rewards for playing both aspects well.

Firstly, there were no rewards for playing your Demeanor except for the nebulous idea of "roleplaying XP".

Roleplaying your Nature got you Willpower back, but that again strikes me as entirely *contrary* to characterization, because you're rewarded for playing your character according to a one-word summary somebody *else* wrote in a core rulebook.


Fiction: While it isn't strictly an RP mechanic, the game books are flooded with fiction, mostly written in the first person pespective, much of which is misinformation, and covered in personal opinion. I think this helps players get a feel for how an individual character thinks/feels about the various things that go on in the WoD.

All of which is entirely external to *your* character. And that's exactly my point and exactly my problem. The World of Darkness games were about the World of Darkness first and foremost.


Your "class" equivalent tends to come with a prepackaged personality and set of political views. To some this can be a deterent, to others it can be a useful guide, regardless it forces you to decide whether you "fit in" with the stereotype or not.

Again, I really don't see how a game which makes assumptions about what your character will be like aids characterization. And heck, your class in *D&D* comes with a prepackaged personality: Wizards are stuffy and bookish, Bards are rebellious and carefree, Monks are wise and restrained.


Humanity/Rage/etc. ..: WW wasn't the first to come up with the idea that your RP choices affect your character's sanity/stability/social ability (I'm thinking Cyberpunk 2020 had something) but it's definitely an important part of the games. This stuff, humanity in particular, was intended to be the "personal horror" aspect of the game (as you watch your character's downward spiral into NPC-dom).

Humanity was a nod in the right direction, but again it was badly implemented, because once again what it did was *punish* you for making particular in-character decisions.


Crunchy pages: Also, when the WW system first came out, the combat section what about the shortest chapter in the book (Vampire), because combat wasn't intended to be the focus of the game. I think this appealed to folks because they could be snobs and talk about the high art of roleplaying vs. rollplaying (yes, we all fell into this at first, admit it to yourself if you don't want to admit it to others)

The shortest chapter in the book, but still actually quite long. And significantly longer than the combat chapter in, say, Call of Cthulhu.


These are some of the things that, I think, help define WW games as immersive RP games, vs. the high crunch DnD system. This is not to say that you can't do immersive RP in DnD, but the system doesn't particularly lend itself to doing so.

So to review, White Wolf games are more immersive because:

They're ostensibly set in the modern world.
They give you a slightly longer list of possible personality types than D&D.
Their combat rules are slightly shorter than the rules in D&D.

Not exactly Everway, is it.

PnP Fan
2007-06-21, 11:45 AM
O Danny Boy,
I'm about to leave the house in a little bit, so I can't make this a long response.
Only one or two of those sections were actually directed towards you. Other sections were addressed to Jannex's comments. When I return I will address your comments (if I haven't forgotten about all of this by then). I just didn't want you to think I'd left the discussion, or didn't have responses, I just don't have the time, at the moment. I do look forward to continuing our discussion (even though in all likelihood neither of us will change our minds about anything, but their is something satisfying about conducting intelligent discourse).
Jannex: glad we see eye to eye on some stuff. It's nice to meet someone with similar background, experiences, and opinions. I look forward to reading more of your posts.
In the meantime, have a good weekend everyone, and game well!
PNP Fan.

EndgamerAzari
2007-06-21, 12:02 PM
I always try to get into my characters, but sometimes the environment doesn't allow for it. Here at home, the DMs are usually mediocre at best and don't allow for any sort of interesting character development. At school, in the game I love, my character (and I) usually doesn't say anything, due to the fact that he (and I) knows nobody will listen.

manda_babylon
2007-06-24, 04:39 PM
Our RP group is pretty much literally split down the middle when it comes to how we play. We have some players, like myself, who prefer Method Acting whenever possible, and we have others who will beer-and-pretzels their way through anything.

I play my characters thoroughly, and, as my group says, I play hard. I develop voices [not completely different ones from my own, mind you, but tones, pitches, and speech patterns] for each character, as well as body language, hand motions, etc. This helps me get into character when we're running multiple games.

Unfortunately, there are times when this becomes a little much. I've been playing one character various forms for three years now. He's the most epic character I ever had, starting off in a BESM setting and moving to D20 Modern. He's currently being run as an NPC by one of our GMs in one of our D20 Modern games. The trick is that this character has a bit of a speech problem, in that he mixes his Ls and Rs in the Japanese style. The problem comes when, out of character, usually when I'm tired, I'll slip into the speech pattern I created for him without meaning to. Everyone laughs, and it's mildly distressing.

'm also known among my group as being the one with the uber-realistic reactions and facial expressions. When I'm GMing my D20 Past, I will pale if the character is caught lying, my eye will twitch if someone tells an NPC something stupid, etc. My group loves it. There was another time, however, when we ran a Vampire: The Masquerade game that included a newbie player who had never role played at all before. He stopped the game at one point, thinking I was going to be sick, because I was playing my character's reaction to the murder of another player's character.

However, I can tell you that playing hard is more fun that sitting out. We have a couple in our group now, who fall into the terrible couple-trap - their characters always sit together and have little whispered conversations with one another, and don't really get involved in the main story as much. One of them tries to get her feet wet and get into character, but the other one will just sit and stare at everyone until someone hand-feeds her a line or a plot hook. We were all concerned at first, because we felt like they weren't being included, but we all felt there was only so much we could do, so we throw ourselves into character and ignore anyone who isn't.

Right now, I'm playing a psychotic mystic who thinks he's a tank, a librarian vampire who is afraid of technology and is remarkably clumsy, and an entire civilization of seventeenth century Frenchmen. It gets a little crowded in here sometimes, but it's worth it for the chance to be someone so very different from myself for a few hours a week. Sounds corny, I know, but it's a hell of a lot more fun than therapy.

geez3r
2007-06-24, 11:09 PM
I think it is acceptable and beneficial for players to form emotional ties to people in game, to a certain degree. For example, let's say you have a player named Jeff, and he is playing a paladin named Greg (just go with it). The party has just stormed the throne room of Mr. BBEG who has been causing massive destruction and death throughout the entire campaign.

Which would you rather see:

1. Greg give a rallying speach that strikes fear into the heart of Mr. BBEG because he knows his reign of terror is over.

OR

2. Jeff rolls initiative.

In this case, Jeff has absolutely no reason to want to stop Mr. BBEG, other than to complete the game, but Greg has all the motivation in the world.


On the other hand, it is not acceptable for Jeff to be in mourning for Greg's passing for a week. That's just creepy.

Emotion is best in moderation.

Tallis
2007-06-25, 12:45 AM
Some emotional attachment to your characters definitely makes for a better and more memorable game. Immersing yourself in character for a few hours a week just makes for a more enjoyable game in my experience. The only people that might have a problem with it are those that have severe emotional problems in real life.
Beer and pretzels gaming is still fun, but it's not the same.

Kizara
2007-06-25, 04:20 AM
I would go so far as saying that real roleplaying is about the exploration of one's emoitions. Character development is an aspect of this, character progression, plot, and any kind of combat are all just kogs for this purpose.

Tormsskull
2007-06-25, 08:47 AM
I think it is very important to make emotional connections with the characters that you are roleplaying. It makes you more concerned with them, more interested in their well-being and experiences.

I've also come to notice that there seems to be 2 different extremes to the types of players:

Gamers & Role Players

Gamers are those people who are interested in the mechanical side of things. They view combat as a serious of numbers that change based on the players ability to move to the right place, cast the right spell, or use the right ability. Their desire to defeat the challenges is so their characters can become more powerful, learn new abilities, and defeat even harder challenges.

Role Players tend to create very detailed characters, write up pages and pages of backstory, and then try to bring that character to life during game time. They know details about their character that no one else ever may. They will make their character choose things based on how they feel their character would react, rather than what is always the most beneficial mechanically.

Of course, there are plenty of shades in-between both extremes, and it is unlikely to find someone that is 100% one way and 0 the other. I also find it interesting that there seems to be a correlation between Role Players and writers, readers, and artists.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-25, 10:51 AM
Role Players tend to create very detailed characters, write up pages and pages of backstory, and then try to bring that character to life during game time. They know details about their character that no one else ever may. They will make their character choose things based on how they feel their character would react, rather than what is always the most beneficial mechanically.


...as a result, their characters die. And the DM wonders why the next character they create has a little bit less backstory, and a few more prestige classes.

HidaTsuzua
2007-06-25, 11:29 AM
Role Players tend to create very detailed characters, write up pages and pages of backstory, and then try to bring that character to life during game time. They know details about their character that no one else ever may. They will make their character choose things based on how they feel their character would react, rather than what is always the most beneficial mechanically.


I once played with a player like that. Lots of little detail that no one knows results in little detail no one else knows that thus doesn't matter. How they characters react is more the less the same as other people reacted, based on their character's strengths and weaknesses. All we got was how we weren't roleplaying by having characters who could do what they wanted to do.

The problem is that there is a false dichotomy in roleplaying games, that of the roleplayer and the gamist. D&D and World of Darkness (new and old) promote this.

D&D gives you a bunch of options that lead down certain paths and fluff. Greatswords are the best twohanded weapon for X role. Evocation sucks for wizards. Therefore you have to make your character underpowered or accept how the world works and make a character that reflects it if you desire to make something D&D doesn't support well.

World of Darkness has similar issues. Some things are just better than others. Therefore you stuck with a choice between effectiveness and what you want to be. World of Darkness also runs into other problems with roleplaying your character based on their rules for it. Nature and Demeanor now makes certain roleplaying choices better or worse.

The problem isn't that there are two types of roleplaying gamers. The problem is that the rules try to split roleplaying gamers into two camps by causing conflicts that shouldn't be. The best sign there is a problem with the rules is when you go "this should be reasonable character considering the setting, but isn't due to the rules." When this happens people will split. If the rules were better it wouldn't be a problem.

For emotional roleplaying, it is important to have some degree of attachment to a character. After all you should care about what happens. We have in-character conversations all the time some of them funny ("you threw brass knuckles" or "all people come from tubes") some of them dire (the roleplaying when we were dying of thirst aboard a ship). However, your character is not you. I've seen people use their characters as thinly veiled personal extensions. While this can be fun such as one L5R game I was in, it can lead to issues such as when bad things happen to them (such as mind control). For best roleplaying, you want rules that encourage the style of roleplaying you want in the setting you want and roleplaying that encourage rules. Bad rules pit the roleplaying and game against each other. Bad roleplaying (which does exist!) does the same. You want both to be good for the best roleplaying experiences.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-25, 11:54 AM
The problem isn't that there are two types of roleplaying gamers. The problem is that the rules try to split roleplaying gamers into two camps by causing conflicts that shouldn't be. The best sign there is a problem with the rules is when you go "this should be reasonable character considering the setting, but isn't due to the rules." When this happens people will split. If the rules were better it wouldn't be a problem.


*applause*

Absolutely right.

The problem is that people then exacerbate the problem by making it some kind of badge of honour to be willing to suck up any game mechanical penalty to play the character you want.

Delaney Gale
2007-06-25, 12:33 PM
...as a result, their characters die. And the DM wonders why the next character they create has a little bit less backstory, and a few more prestige classes.

I have never met a player who played their first character with too much backstory, and most of the time a first-time player is going through too much deer-in-the-headlights syndrome to make up an elaborate backstory and insist that the character be just so.


The problem is that people then exacerbate the problem by making it some kind of badge of honour to be willing to suck up any game mechanical penalty to play the character you want.

*ding!* Heaven forbid that your character's backstory could lead you to... I dunno... a balanced, playable, relatively powerful character! Everyone knows that backstories are only meant to provide emo-wangst and/or make your character the ONLY IMPORTANT ONE IN THE CAMPAIGN.

Tormsskull
2007-06-25, 12:45 PM
The problem is that people then exacerbate the problem by making it some kind of badge of honour to be willing to suck up any game mechanical penalty to play the character you want.

I think that only occurs when someone in the group doesn't roleplay or metagames too much.

When it comes right down to it, sometimes roleplaying your character how you should leads to having him make a suboptimal choice. If your character is terrified of fire, and there is a big wall of fire in front of him, it is unlikely that he is going to jump through the big wall of fire in order to grab the treasure.

So if 3 of the players have well thought out characters with goals, flaws, hopes, dreams, etc., and 1 of the players has 0 backstory and is basically a stock character with no personality, but is always showing the other 3 up mechanically, it becomes very easy for the others to say "Yeah, but at least we're role playing, you're just (insert your terminology here)."

Once again, it is preference. If you prefer that your character is a superhero, who has no weakness', doesn't fear anything at all, then that is your choice. Just don't be suprised if the role players around you don't want you in their group.

valadil
2007-06-25, 12:53 PM
With roleplaying you get out of it whatever you put into it. Sadly, I just haven't found the energy to really get into character in the past couple years.

Also, I've always found theatrical LARPs to be so much more conducive to deep roleplaying than any table top game. I'm not saying RP doesn't happen around a table, but it's much easier for everyone to get into it when you put the books, dice, and minis away and just have your character. Basically there are fewer things to break your suspension of disbelief. You don't talk to someone then roll your charisma - you just talk to them. If you're constantly doing things in character like that it's much easier to stay focused on being in character. Naturally there are things that break it and force you to get out of character, but not nearly as much in a tabletop game.

Rob Knotts
2007-06-25, 01:03 PM
It's been my experience that every system/setting from D&D to WoD to whatever the current version of Paranoia is, every widely-played system focuses on combat interaction, sometimes to the point of ignoring any possible rules for non-combat interaction between characters and/or NPCs.

I'm not talking about reducing all roleplaying to some sort of rules-set, but situations where one character is trying to directly influence the behaviour of another (intimidation, seduction, con-games, etc), influence the player or referee knows the PC/NPC should resist or refuse. In situations like this players and DMs need a way to distance themselves from the character someone is trying to manipulate, because the player/DM's reaction to the manipulation is not likely to be appropriate to the PC/NPC in question.

Water finds it's own level. When the abstract rules for governing character interaction focus mainly or entirely on combat, players and referees quickly start seeing all characters through that viewpoint. Unfortunately, what few games I've seen that have tried to introduce non-combat rules for interaction as well developed as the combat rules (or more so), they've all been commercial flops.

Personally I'd like to see a comprehensive set of non-combat interaction rules for any major commercial RPG, but from I've seen over the last 20 years it just doesn't seem commercially viable to publish such material.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-25, 01:09 PM
I think that only occurs when someone in the group doesn't roleplay or metagames too much.

When it comes right down to it, sometimes roleplaying your character how you should leads to having him make a suboptimal choice. If your character is terrified of fire, and there is a big wall of fire in front of him, it is unlikely that he is going to jump through the big wall of fire in order to grab the treasure.

And if your character is not interested in material possessions, he should not want the treasure at all. Such a character would suck, because they would have no wealth.


So if 3 of the players have well thought out characters with goals, flaws, hopes, dreams, etc., and 1 of the players has 0 backstory and is basically a stock character with no personality, but is always showing the other 3 up mechanically, it becomes very easy for the others to say "Yeah, but at least we're role playing, you're just (insert your terminology here)."

Perhaps the "role-players" wouldn't be so bitter if they weren't playing a game that penalised them for roleplaying.


Once again, it is preference. If you prefer that your character is a superhero, who has no weakness', doesn't fear anything at all, then that is your choice. Just don't be suprised if the role players around you don't want you in their group.

Try an experiment for me.

Play a D&D character who isn't materialistic.

And do it properly.

Never take treasure. Show no interest in treasure. Go through the entire game with your starting equipment. If you get paid to do something, spend the money on moderately good living, but don't buy better weapons or armour, don't invest in magic items. Don't keep any of the loot you pick up because, y'know, it's just stuff.

Once you've done that, in a standard game, all the way from level one to level twenty, you can call yourself a "role-player".

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-25, 01:11 PM
Personally I'd like to see a comprehensive set of non-combat interaction rules for any major commercial RPG, but from I've seen over the last 20 years it just doesn't seem commercially viable to publish such material.

Exalted has "social combat" IIRC. The Burning Wheel bases its combat system on its system for debate. In Dogs in the Vineyard, shooting somebody is just an extension of conversation by deadlier means. Weapons of the Gods has "secret arts" which allows you to back up your social interaction with real mechanical effects.

The "real role-players" of course, will insist that only powergamers want systems for social interaction, because you should "just role-play it".

Tormsskull
2007-06-25, 01:28 PM
Perhaps the "role-players" wouldn't be so bitter if they weren't playing a game that penalised them for roleplaying.


So far I have seen you say that every system around has a multitude of problems. When people say they like D&D, you say WW would be better for RP. When people say they like WW for RP, you bring up some other RPG I've never heard of.

Out of curiosity, what game do you play?



Try an experiment for me.

Play a D&D character who isn't materialistic.


Though you have no reason to believe me, I played that character before, though admitedly not to level 20. I think the character retired at level 5. It was back in 2nd edition and I was a weaponless armorless cleric. I did all of the negotiations for the group, healed them up, but I was otherwise a pacifist.

It was interesting in some ways, and boring in others, but the role playing with the other characters was really fun.

Anyhow, the definition of "role player" is going to vary from one person to another.

Rob Knotts
2007-06-25, 01:31 PM
The "real role-players" of course, will insist that only powergamers want systems for social interaction, because you should "just role-play it".In my opinion those kinds of "real roleplayers" belong in nightclubs, theme-parties, and Rocky Horror* screenings rather than taking room at the table away from more routine gamers :smallwink:

*I'm actually a long-time RHPS fan, having gone to more shows that I can count.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-25, 04:37 PM
So far I have seen you say that every system around has a multitude of problems. When people say they like D&D, you say WW would be better for RP. When people say they like WW for RP, you bring up some other RPG I've never heard of.

Out of curiosity, what game do you play?


I'm running Weapons of the Gods at the moment (flawed but decent Wuxia), I'm very into The Burning Wheel (which actively rewards you for playing your character, to the extent of letting the players decide what they get XP for). I've played Ars Magica a fair bit (decent, but has a similar "punishing you for not playing an obsessive monomaniac" problem). I'm massively enthusiastic about Unknown Armies, which again is very character focused. I've played a little bit of BESM, which is fun.

I've played a bunch of homebrew systems, as well, and I think they work better for more - for want of a better word - "world-focused" roleplaying. If your GM is running a world he designed in a system he designed, everything is going to hang together, and you can get on with exploring the world.

Basically I'm into character-driven gaming. The problem with a lot of games is that they expect you to put a huge amount of effort into designing a character, and then treat that character as essentially disposable.

Kalirren
2007-06-25, 07:15 PM
My two poor coins:

I've grown a lot as a roleplayer since I started roleplaying. I've turned from an actor into a free-form, systemless PbP'er into a tabletop'er into a D&D PbP'er, and I've DM'ed at all of these turns.

Roleplaying, to me, is the amalgamation of re-enactments and descriptions of the interactions between characters, or between characters and the forces they perceive around them, or within a single character's psyche. The understanding a player has of his character that such detailed portrayal entails is the unescapable and unshakeable foundation of emotionally and intellectually stimulating roleplaying - this is the vaunted goal over which some unfortunate souls salivate, at times bemoaning their existence among immature and incomplete players and GMs.

What has become obvious to me through my experiences is that these character-defining interactions are system-independent. Characters make friends, acquire enemies, learn to trust and believe, wrestle with temptation and guilt and power, and in general interact with themselves and others in D&D, just like they do in Vampire, just like they do in free-form; they do so in ways that we can predict from the behavior of people in the real world. I can be sure in saying that interactions between two characters would occur the same way regardless of the system under which the game was being run: if character interactions didn't work in ways predictable from what we know about the real world, then the players would cease being able to identify with their characters at all. That is the point at which an RPG ceases being an RPG, and can only be a numbercrunchfest if it is anything at all.

All systems are simply models of how people and things work. All models are flawed, and sometimes one model is more useful than another. But no model, no system can possibly capture the uniqueness that is a player character, comprising what he is in relation to the world around him; this can only be created from the player's gut. Indeed, it follows from the system-independence of character portrayal that all of the emotional and intellectual content of roleplaying must be found in the interactions among the players and the GM.

Yes, I'm aware that on a certain level the system does define the basics of how characters interact. For instance, there are blood bonds in Vampire. There is verbal combat in Exalted. There are spells like Glibness in D&D. All of these mechanics purport to dictate certain aspects of how characters interact with each other. And the instant a GM houserules, he moves away from the system anyway, which is tantamount to admitting that whether or not the system in use is flawed, the GM is still the one who makes the decision, and who is in control of how -all- system-wise aspects of the game are approached and resolved.



The problem with a lot of games is that they expect you to put a huge amount of effort into designing a character, and then treat that character as essentially disposable.

This is the core fallacy of system-bashing. This particular problem, which has been articulated as the central salient problem with systems, is not the system's fault at all! It's the GM's! It is entirely the GM's fault for creating (or following) a game and plotline that de-emphasizes the Player Characters, and this is an error that can be made regardless of both system and setting. If your problem with a system is setting, you have conflated two very separate issues: it is entirely possible and reasonable to run a campaign set in the World of Darkness which doesn't involve the climactic Gehenna buildup.

On the topic of setting, I really don't see how it stands to argue that setting detracts from characterization. Plotline can ignore attempted characterization, but setting is just that - it is what the world was before we zoomed in on the PCs, and what is going on around them despite their existence and their beliefs. A DM who is letting setting continue to influence the characters as if it were pre-determined history is making a mistake that's so common, it's even got a name - it's called "railroading." The DM doesn't have to do it. Bashing any system on this ground fails to separate the DM from the system.

I would agree with those who have said that published books naturally create a false dichotomy between gamers/optimizers and actors. Of course that's true: any system would do that. Consider that the "base case" of roleplaying is systemless, and that all that exist in totally systemless RPGs are actors. Add any system into the mix and then you will have to start compromising the verisimilitude of your character's mindset and reactions to conform to the inherent constraints and limitations of the system's mechanic. To wit, this attempted assertion:


Perhaps the "role-players" wouldn't be so bitter if they weren't playing a game that penalised them for roleplaying.

But being "penalised for roleplaying" makes no sense. Yes, they're not building their characters' stat blocks fully in accordance with system specifications. So what? Have you ever seen anyone "win" D&D? "lose" Vampire? No, of course not, that doesn't happen. You may win encounters, but what you take out of the game is what you put into it. The people who think they lose an RPG when they don't deal the most damage in the party have system optimization as one of their objectives: that's fine, to each his taste. If characters die because they're being stupid, ticking off the wrong NPCs, or walking themselves off of cliffs, that's the players' fault. But if the characters die because they weren't optimally built, and this throws a big wrench in the players' ability to appreciate the DM's world/plotline, then guess whose fault it is? Yep. The DM's. This is the symptom of DM's throwing characters challenges too big to handle instead of the players deciding "Yes, we can handle that" or "****, let's get out of here." The reason why a game that penalises you for roleplaying exists is that the DM is emphasizing the system, instead of emphasizing the world.

In short, the big issue is not the system in use, it's "Talk to your DM about your game."

Jerthanis
2007-06-25, 08:05 PM
Also, I've always found theatrical LARPs to be so much more conducive to deep roleplaying than any table top game. I'm not saying RP doesn't happen around a table, but it's much easier for everyone to get into it when you put the books, dice, and minis away and just have your character. Basically there are fewer things to break your suspension of disbelief. You don't talk to someone then roll your charisma - you just talk to them. If you're constantly doing things in character like that it's much easier to stay focused on being in character. Naturally there are things that break it and force you to get out of character, but not nearly as much in a tabletop game.

Conversely, I find myself much more easily slipping deep into a role when around a table and the OOC happens alongside the IC, with jokes flying and so on, because I can always sit back on my haunches and say, "What would my character say to that?" or "How would my character react?" and 30 seconds later, when I know for sure, and I've got a cool line set to go, BAM, I'm roleplaying.

The times I've LARPed, I've found myself slipping into *stunned silence* for most of the game because I just can't keep up with what's going on, or I think of something interesting to say 10 seconds after it would apply.

It's the difference between improvisational acting with one take and improvisational storytelling. In one, you can ask for clarifications, or setting details, or take a pause to consider and slow down to rest, in the other anything that isn't your character's next action or statement breaks the mood and flow.

Also, I pretty much, but not entirely, agree with Kalirren about the overall topic here.

Ravyn
2007-06-25, 10:50 PM
I actually found once that some of the best RPing I've ever seen was actually done over IM. In person, the groups tended to devolve into OOC chatter far too easily; by post, it was just too slow to really get in character. (That and I--and at least one other player--had this tendency towards inarticulation face to face. It was a running joke in one game that what I really needed to do was sit at the end of the table and type my lines.) But get us together on a Friday night, our fingers tapping away, and we pulled epic, heartwrenching, and absolutely amazing on a regular basis.

(Being given permission to declare a short segment of discussion a blooper take didn't hurt either...)

Diggorian
2007-06-25, 11:47 PM
Absolutely insiteful and articulate, thank you Kalirren. If you'd approve I'd proudly sig that treatise. Please contribute more often. :smallbiggrin:

draca
2007-06-26, 12:14 PM
...as a result, their characters die. And the DM wonders why the next character they create has a little bit less backstory, and a few more prestige classes.

Sounds like a cheap shot.

Though I doubt a DM that likes role-playing, and not roll-playing in her group would wonder about that.

If instead you are talking about a role player stuck in a Roll-playing group with a rules intensive DM, then you just about hit in on the head. If they stick around for a few characters, they would naturally try to make one that lives longer, or be less attached, until unsatisfied with the experience, they quit that group.

Diggorian
2007-06-26, 12:52 PM
If instead you are talking about a role player stuck in a Roll-playing group with a rules intensive DM, then you just about hit in on the head. If they stick around for a few characters, they would naturally try to make one that lives longer, or be less attached, until unsatisfied with the experience, they quit that group.

Less backstory means more prestige classes kinda implies that Role- and Roll-playing are mutually exclusive, or detract from one another. They need not.

One can play completely immersed in their character, faithful to their attitudes and origins translating into action, and yet want a certain prestige class that may not quite jive. They can tell the DM ahead of time and resolve the incompatibility in the story itself.

A fighter proud of being from the school of hard knocks looks down on warblade and the other sublime classes as ... pretentious. The player reads ToB and decides he actually now wants to multiclass into Warblade, they're sweet! He tells the DM, who works up a subplot where a Warblade NPC shows up and over the course of encounters and character developement wins the classic fighter's respect and imparts the sublime ways virutes.

Roleplayed well to a more optimal result.

Matthew
2007-06-27, 09:20 PM
Absolutely insiteful and articulate, thank you Kalirren. If you'd approve I'd proudly sig that treatise. Please contribute more often. :smallbiggrin:
I would tend to agree. An interesting and well argued case.

Kevka Palazzo
2007-06-27, 10:45 PM
It's odd that that essay (it's the only term that could honestly describe the level of thought and work put into it) has heartened me. I will show it to my naysayer friends (with your permission first, Kalirren) and if they still have problems role-playing (in any system) then they are soulless cretins. :smallamused:

Thank you for your two poor coins, Kalirren.

Kalirren
2007-06-28, 11:33 AM
Hey, anyone who wants to link it is fine with me. Maybe I should revise it and post it somewhere more permanent, then. Glad it was of use.

::thumbs up::

nagora
2007-06-28, 12:43 PM
My question is, is it realistic to expect players to truly get into character and roleplay? Is roleplaying an aspect that, in real life, just isn't emphasized? I have a hard time imagining either myself or any of my friends becoming attached to a character in a game and then expressing pain if they die.


Certainly if you feel pain when a character dies then you have a problem and it's not with your role-playing. Regret: sure. Anger: why not? Pain: not so much.


Another question: is it really even healthy to be so attached to a fictional character? I see people that'll cry when a favorite character dies in a book or movie, but is it a good idea to be so attached to a character in a game?

No.

Role-playing should be fun. It should be a release. If it has become just another means for your life to become complicated, stressful, and angst-ridden then your role-playing is broken. If you feel that you are not role-playing "properly" because you're not acting like this then your idea of role-playing games is broken too.

As a sweeping generalisation: people who do this are over-compensating for something else in their lives instead of addressing it properly. There is a line that divides escapism from hiding and the level of emotional attachment to imaginary people that I think you're talking about is well over that line. You see it in soap-shutins too.

But, apart from anything else, I find that the people who go in for this are actually very bad role-players in that they invariably act out characters that are far more intense than anyone really is. Frowning and moody silences replace actually playing an individual and they just go through one sad cliche after another. Real people are not like that.

Relax, play the game, play a part, have fun. The only bad type of role-playing is the type that isn't fun.

Diggorian
2007-06-28, 12:54 PM
Certainly if you feel pain when a character dies then you have a problem and it's not with your role-playing. Regret: sure. Anger: why not? Pain: not so much.


Arent the regret and anger reactions to the pain? If they are acceptible responses why not feeling the loss of a great character?

valadil
2007-06-28, 01:26 PM
Conversely, I find myself much more easily slipping deep into a role when around a table and the OOC happens alongside the IC, with jokes flying and so on, because I can always sit back on my haunches and say, "What would my character say to that?" or "How would my character react?" and 30 seconds later, when I know for sure, and I've got a cool line set to go, BAM, I'm roleplaying.

The times I've LARPed, I've found myself slipping into *stunned silence* for most of the game because I just can't keep up with what's going on, or I think of something interesting to say 10 seconds after it would apply.

It's the difference between improvisational acting with one take and improvisational storytelling. In one, you can ask for clarifications, or setting details, or take a pause to consider and slow down to rest, in the other anything that isn't your character's next action or statement breaks the mood and flow.

Also, I pretty much, but not entirely, agree with Kalirren about the overall topic here.

I can see that being a problem in a LARP. I've done plenty of LARPs where I get left behind because other players have characters that are better suited to them. I've also done my best RP in LARPs where I'm cast correctly or when I'm given enough wiggle room to define the character myself. Way too many newbie LARPers get stuck playing out the canonical version of their character instead of taking it in an interesting direction.

For instance I played in an amnesia game that I won't name. We started with no character sheet, but were given an index card once per hour with a portion of the character sheet. The doctor in this game was terribly incompetent. Anyone they operated on ended up dying due to gross incompetence. A player during one run got a card that said his patients all died and interpreted that to mean he was an evil doctor, so he went around poisoning the rest of the cast in the game. When you realize you can take a character in directions like that, you become a lot freer to play characters who you can improvise instead of those that require lots of thought.

I've also always found that it takes me a long time to get in character for a LARP. Once I'm there I'm good to go, but I usually miss out on the first couple hours of the game as I listen to people and reread portions of the character sheet. It makes short games pointless for me, since I'm still getting in character by the time it ends, but longer ones are much better.

I don't have to deal with that period of finding the character in PnP games because I like to do extensive backstories. Not the kind that details my family history, but usually the sort of thing that turns a character into an adventurer. I mean, I start with proper history for a paragraph or two and then go into some dialog and eventually segue into the current game.

The dialog is important. That's where I can spend 30 seconds crafting a response and really getting inside the character's head. After doing that for a couple hours, I usually have a good enough grasp of the character that I can slip in and out, and just roll with it without having to delay while I ask what he's thinking.