Aspects of Roleplaying

[kyoryu]

So in the 4e thread, I made a post about playing the "character building game" as opposed to the "playing the game game." This got me thinking.

There seem to be three main 'aspects' of RPGs:

1. Character building/progression (changed from development)
2. Conflict resolution (tactical combat, etc.)
3. Social play ("roleplaying", story, worldbuilding)

Given 12 points to distribute, how would you distribute them based on how important you think the different aspects were?

Bonus question: How would you distribute 12 points for what various game systems emphasize?

I'm roughly: 2/5/5

A few game systems I'd rate:
Battletech: 9/3/0 (where character building is building mechs)
D&D 3.x: 5/4/3
D&D 4: 3/6/3 (maybe 4/5/3)
GURPS: 5/3/4

[Comet]

I'd like to dispute tactical combat being a main aspect of roleplaying in general.

I'd replace it simply with "conflict" or somesuch, to reflect any situation where dice are rolled/ cards are drawn/ rock,paper scissors is played etc. Situations where the characters stand to lose something and must get by with luck and by relying on their strongest abilities.

With that out of the way, my distribution would be something like:

Character building: 3
Conflict: 5
"Roleplaying" (I count this as the parts where no dice are rolled, the players just swag their chins, plan their next job or tell jokes to each other in-character): 4

[Ravens_cry]

Call it a quibble, but I would make the first into two, because I distinguish between character development, AKA backstory and character building, the number crunching part.

[kyoryu]

Call it a quibble, but I would make the first into two, because I distinguish between character development, AKA backstory and character building, the number crunching part.

I'd probably lump that into social play, if anything. I considered that split as well, I just didn't want to end up with 18 different aspects.

I'd like to dispute tactical combat being a main aspect of roleplaying in general.

I'd replace it simply with "conflict" or somesuch, to reflect any situation where dice are rolled/ cards are drawn/ rock,paper scissors is played etc. Situations where the characters stand to lose something and must get by with luck and by relying on their strongest abilities.

Good point. Systems with a low emphasis on conflict resolution certainly won't have anything resembling tactical combat, even though they may have conflict resolution rules.

[Thinker]

In before Samurai Jill.

My 12 points would go as follows:

1. Character building/developmentprogression - 6
2. Tactical combat Conflict - 3
3. Social play ("roleplaying"/character development) - 3

[valadil]

I like that you've categorized character building/development and socializing as two different things. I've always seen them this way. This distinction also helps emphasize that there's more to roleplay than chatting up the barkeeper. I like to think of them as internal and external roleplay, though your definitions work too.

I also distinguish combat and other mechanical parts of the game. In combat (at least in 3.5 and 4e) players rely on a known set of tools. They put those together as best they can and hopefully construct tactics out of it.

In other parts of the game you'll put the players in situations they haven't seen before and they have to figure out new uses for the tools they have. The most obvious use for this is physical skill challenges. You end up with the players rolling a bunch of skill checks, but there's a certain amount of creativity required before they can get to the check. I view this part of roleplay as puzzles. Depending on the game it can also be described as planning.

Finally, I also see the story as different from roleplay. You can't always develop plot and character at the same time. It's awesome when you can, but it just doesn't work out that way all the time. Sometimes the players just follow plothooks because they're there. Sometimes you have to read a couple pages of infodump. It just happens.

Anyway I'm going to decline to provide numerical answers. I try to vary how much time is spent in each category each session. If the players avoid combat in one session, odds are I'll throw them an extra fight or two next time.

[Zaydos]

My 12 points go...

Character Building 5
Tactical Combat 3.5
Role-playing 3.5

[Feliks878]

This seems to be very subjective group to group (or even player to player) within a system itself.

I've played games that could be best called combat simulations, where section three would be 0, or at best, 1.

But I've also been in games (especially PbP) where most of the time is taken up by Roleplaying, where no dice are rolled, or at best the occasional skill check is made. I'd say my ideal game is something like 4/4/4, because I like all aspects of the RPG, but I've yet to play one like that, including games I run myself.

[Dienekes]

Easy enough:

Character Build: 2
Combat: 3
Social Play: 7

I have never had the patience or really, the desire to try and plan and optimize a character. Combat is fun and all, but without a decent story it's just rolling d20s to hear someone tell you something else fell down. However, a good story to be told and influenced, interesting characters, and enough personality makes the combat meaningful and engaging and can carry an entire game that combat cannot.

For me anyway. I know of several who would state it the exact opposite of what I have shown, in fact I GM for one of them. So I generally throw him a bone and get them in a good fight or two ever session.

[kyoryu]

This seems to be very subjective group to group (or even player to player) within a system itself.

I've played games that could be best called combat simulations, where section three would be 0, or at best, 1.

But I've also been in games (especially PbP) where most of the time is taken up by Roleplaying, where no dice are rolled, or at best the occasional skill check is made. I'd say my ideal game is something like 4/4/4, because I like all aspects of the RPG, but I've yet to play one like that, including games I run myself.

Yeah, we all play games that frequently veer from what our ideal is, but that's what I'm really asking, what is your ideal? How importantly do you rate the various aspects, even if the games you play don't work out exactly that way?

So, you sound like a 4/4/4 to me

*big snip*

Yeah, I could have broken things down much further. I didn't, as I wanted to keep it pretty high level.

Anyway I'm going to decline to provide numerical answers. I try to vary how much time is spent in each category each session. If the players avoid combat in one session, odds are I'll throw them an extra fight or two next time.

That sounds suspiciously close to 4/4/4 - "all aspects are important and none should be emphasized to the detriment of others"

[arrowhen]

If Social Play includes collaborative world building, NPCs, and plots: 2/3/7

If it just means "talking in character": 3/5/4.

[Strawberries]

1. Character building/developmentprogression
2. Tactical combat Conflict
3. Social play ("roleplaying"/character development)

I like those definitions better than the original ones. I feel there should be something in there about "plot/telling a story", too, but I'll put it under the "social play" aspect.

So, for me:

Character building/progression 2
Conflict 3
Social play ("roleplaying"/character development/collaborative world building, NPCs, and plots) 7

[Psyx]

Probably 5/4/3 or maybe 4/4/4. Or maybe 4/5/3...

I view the character development in a roleplay sense as very important, and I tend to focus on the 'soft' non-crunchy aspects of that more than perhaps the rest of the world.


It depends on the game and the GM to be honest. I think that any GM can 'steer' a player at least 1 pip on every score.

[Susano-wo]

I would find it hard to allocate points, but here would be my priorities
Storytelling,
Tactical/conflict,
Charbuilding

Though I can have great fun mesing with character building, I always choose based on character, story, and even style over what would be better(though will avoid taking some things that are just terrible, even if they make sense for the char). And I'd rather play a game with awesome characters and story than a good tactical sim, though combat, etc can be fun.

[oxybe]

4/4/4

mainly because i can never tell from one session to another what will actually happen so we tend to roll with it.

sometimes we want to talk with NPCs. sometimes our weapons want to talk with NPCs.

shrug.

[Kylarra]

sometimes we want to talk with NPCs. sometimes our weapons want to talk with NPCs.

This amuses me more than it should. If I were a signature quoting person this would be signature quoted.

I'm more of a character building person, but that's probably because of the "dry years" where I didn't get to game much so I mostly just crafted characters for fun.

[Fiery Diamond]

I'm gonna add myself to the group including story/social/character development/NPCs/world building as all part of the third category...and, like the others, add my preferences as 2/3/7.