Emotional Roleplaying

[Kevka Palazzo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Reasonable? Sure.

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

[Jannex]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I rend my clothes and put on sackcloth whenever I roll a one.

[PnP Fan]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

*I'll go wash my mouth out now

[Guinaur]

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]

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]

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]

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? ). 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.