Degrees of role-playing

[Jediphile]

I find that in many an RPG, you eventually run into the difference between role-playing and roll-playing.

 

Some people actually like the latter, and I don't mean to sound judgmental when I say that - it's quite fine that they do, just as long as they'll accept that I don't.

 

I find that role-playing is better the deeper it gets, and I can feel just fine playing several sessions as a player without ever having to roll my dice (though few RPGs lend themselves well to that...).

 

As a GM I definitely place most focus on the role-playing aspect, even when I play AD&D Mystara - I try to cut down on the boring (IMHO) battles and instead place the PCs in what I hope are interesting situations, where their immediate choices might have a lot of consequence.

 

But even among deep role-players there are a lot of differences between the styles. I, for one, always try to use the backgrounds that my players have detailed for their characters as a basis for putting them right in the middle of things by the way of family, old friends, past experiences, etc.

 

Some GMs prefer to keep away from that, however, and embrace a more generic approach, where the backgrounds of the PCs really doesn't matter that much. The advantage to such plots is that they can be used over and over, because the identities of the PCs are a non-factor.

 

But I think that takes a bit away from the game. I like to "chain" my plots together so that the players get involved in the next story because of something they did or didn't do in the last one, or they could become involved because the character has not done something for a long time, such as seeing to family duties while he or she was off adventuring in some foreign place.

 

How do people out there see this? What sort of approach do you take? Is the PCs' background important or are they non-factors in your games? And much continuity do you place in your game - how much does the outcome of one plot affect your gameworld and subsequent plots?

[EnderAndrew]

I like putting players into difficult decisions and watching the fur fly personally.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Tying the story into the characters backgrounds is a good way to achieve deeper immersion, continuing and having the events of previous sessions/adventures tie into new ones is also very good because it gives a feeling of continuity and realism.

 

 

but there are problems:

 

 

1) You might get it wrong- only the player really knows his character's past and as a GM its easy to step on the 'toes of his imagination'. I remember well how it felt when my GM portrayed a key character from my PC's past as a complete b*tch, which she definently wasnt in my mind. Its very hard for a player to describe his PC's background in such detail and with such feeling that the GM can do it justice in a story.

 

 

2) Some character concepts exist only in the now- I do this often, I build a completed character on pure feeling, where the backstory is really inconsequential. I view characters as roles in a film, you dont need to know if his father was a mormon if youve already got the feeling for how this character acts and behaves.

[Walsingham]

1) You might get it wrong- only the player really knows his character's past and as a GM its easy to step on the 'toes of his imagination'. I remember well how it felt when my GM portrayed a key character from my PC's past as a complete b*tch, which she definently wasnt in my mind. Its very hard for a player to describe his PC's background in such detail and with such feeling that the GM can do it justice in a story.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But isn't it usually the case that b*tches from our past don't feel that way to us?

[metadigital]

Don't mention the ex!

[Jediphile]

Tying the story into the characters backgrounds is a good way to achieve deeper immersion, continuing and having the events of previous sessions/adventures tie into new ones is also very good because it gives a feeling of continuity and realism.

 

 

but there are problems:

 

 

1) You might get it wrong- only the player really knows his character's past and as a GM its easy to step on the 'toes of his imagination'. I remember well how it felt when my GM portrayed a key character from my PC's past as a complete b*tch, which she definently wasnt in my mind. Its very hard for a player to describe his PC's background in such detail and with such feeling that the GM can do it justice in a story.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Only once did I add to a character's background. I did it after talking to the player and getting his acceptance for it. But then I guess I prompt it up front by encouraging my players to tell me of their backgrounds, such as what family they have, old friends and enemies, former love interests and allies met on other adventures, etc.

 

I've used that information as a basis for plots in my campaig numerous times, and I've yet to hear a player complain about how I characterized someone from their past, though they haven't always like how that character fared... especially not if he or she died, but then that's to be expected - if they didn't mind seeing their old comrades die, then there really would be no point, would there?

 

2) Some character concepts exist only in the now- I do this often, I build a completed character on pure feeling, where the backstory is really inconsequential. I view characters as roles in a film, you dont need to know if his father was a mormon if youve already got the feeling for how this character acts and behaves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

True enough, but while as a player I may do this myself, I find that it's usually just a matter of time before I begin filling in the blanks of my character's history, especially if it's a character I really like (and they usually are, since otherwise I stop playing them...). Besides, even ten lines of backstory can be a goldmine for the GM, and that's not much to ask for. Indeed, I find it helps define the character, since it helps you understand who he or she is, and this makes it easier for you to role-play the character.

 

And even if a plyaer really couldn't be bothered to establish a background, I can usually shed some light on it as a GM by asking a little about it. This is especially true if you suggest something for the character's background that the player doesn't like - they you'll hear it immediately

[Reveilled]

While I'm very much the roleplayer, my players prefer things such as puzzles and battles which are won through unusual means (like dropping a chandelier on the otherwise invincible monster), which is really neither role-play or roll-play.

 

Since I also happen to enjoy thinking up things like riddles and puzzles, I'm happy to let the game focus on that, even if it means our games are more reminiscent of Zelda and Monkey Island than your traditional RPG. Presently, my players are quite happy on a cliched quest to collect seven ancient books from seven differently themed dungeons to stop the evil Sorceress' plans to take over the world, with some fairly silly and over-the-top stereotypical High Fantasy roleplay in between.

[alanschu]

Only once did I add to a character's background. I did it after talking to the player and getting his acceptance for it. But then I guess I prompt it up front by encouraging my players to tell me of their backgrounds, such as what family they have, old friends and enemies, former love interests and allies met on other adventures, etc.

 

Don't you find this takes away from the atmosphere, when you suddenly break character in the middle of the game to discuss and get the OK with the player about a background.

[Jediphile]

Don't you find this takes away from the atmosphere, when you suddenly break character in the middle of the game to discuss and get the OK with the player about a background.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It would, but I never do it during sessions. I usually like to plan three or four adventures/scenarios ahead, and if background becomes relevant, then I ask the player outside the game, preferably via email so that we can get into details without bugging the game with it. Also, I encourage detailed backgrounds during character creation. Most players already have an idea of what they want at that point, so I just ask them to write it down in a few words, which always becomes more than they planned

[Walsingham]

I used to put the emphasis on survival. Realistic challenges that could easily kill the PCs if they weren't paying 100% attention. Bit of a niche market.

 

Now I put the emphasis on plot, deep characters, and convoluted jokes about platypi.

[Judge Hades]

It depends on the genre. I am starting up a Cyberpunk 2020 campaign (using the old Interlock system) which will be heading towards an apocalypse of sorts. I tend to seek a balance between character plot and development with solid action in a Cyberpunk genre game.

 

Oh, and I don't hesitate in killing characters. I still need to beat my record of the 47 minute PC kill from my old 2e ADnD game.

[Darque]

Yes, yes, we know, you're a killer GM.

[metadigital]

Do GMs roleplay different types of GM in RP sessions? "

 

 

That would be meta-GMing? No meta-RPing? No, quasi-RPing, meta-GMing!

[Reveilled]

Do GMs roleplay different types of GM in RP sessions? "

 

 

That would be meta-GMing? No meta-RPing? No, quasi-RPing, meta-GMing!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I regularly roleplay the "Didn't really do enough preperation this week" type of GM. "

[metadigital]

That usually has the same appearance as the "Killer GM", doesn't it? ^_^

[Lancer]

People seem to separate "combat" from "actual roleplaying" as if they were two totally disparate things... Almost as if when a fight begins roleplaying mysteriously must cease..

 

I believe that if combat in your games is "boring" then you are probably not doing it in the best fashion. If you actually roleplay your combats (and if you use minis, use tactics) rather than just doing the following:

 

"I roll a 15 on a d20. Hit"

 

"Ok. Subtract 6 hp off the ghoul"

 

then combat becomes as fun as anything else in the game.

[Guest Fishboot]

As a player I like for the GM to retain elements of "gaming" as opposed to all of us just play-acting at one another while the GM forces us along the fantasy novel plot he's had in his head for years. For instance, I hate when I'm given out of game information that my character isn't supposed to know. I don't want to know if we're going to see the big campaign badarse next week, I don't want to know about the thing I narrowly missed across town.

 

I'm kind of an anti-narrative player - my characters don't have a bunch of background hooks ("I left our squatter's farm when ma' an' pa' died, sold the pigs and bought a sword") and I only grudgingly cooperate with a GM who leads you along by the nose, and my roleplaying doesn't have much affectation.

 

In fact, I think the whole party/coterie/squad method of playing RPGs is anti-roleplaying in and of itself, since you (the player) are obviously making role-playing and narrative compromises to keep the group together and doing the same things (hence the frowning on the player who stabs the survivors of the party in the back after they've killed the foozle so he can take all the treasure). While good GMs will run some solo sessions for the players, it's not the natural configuration. So I think in the light of those difficulties at least part of your brain has to be flipped into gamist mode.

[Judge Hades]

Yes, yes, we know, you're a killer GM. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually I am the least killer DM in my group.

[metadigital]

Just the swiftest ...

[Judge Hades]

I don't even try. I just run the scenerio and if the PCs do something stupid they die. If they play their character reasonably intelligent they don't have to worry to much. But if they decide to do something stupid like a try to take on a black ops armed only with toothbrushes I will kill them.

[metadigital]

I like to roleplay Sean Connery, except it isn't really roleplay for me ... "

[EnderAndrew]

I prefer role-playing over roll-playing, but combat can be a part of role-playing. Deciding what to risk your life for can be a big part of role-playing one's character. Thusly, combat does not proclude role-playing.

[Jediphile]

In fact, I think the whole party/coterie/squad method of playing RPGs is anti-roleplaying in and of itself, since you (the player) are obviously making role-playing and narrative compromises to keep the group together and doing the same things (hence the frowning on the player who stabs the survivors of the party in the back after they've killed the foozle so he can take all the treasure). While good GMs will run some solo sessions for the players, it's not the natural configuration. So I think in the light of those difficulties at least part of your brain has to be flipped into gamist mode.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I see your point, but you're really talking about two things here. One is that options seem narrow to the player, because doing something that runs contrary to the rest of the group will be met by rail-roading by the GM to keep the group together. I'm with you on that one btw, because I also hate when my actions are dictated by what the majority of the group will do. I have walked away from game tables, when a GM tried it...

 

But that's not the same as accepting it when someone backstabs the party and kills the other PCs. That different because anti-social, and role-playing is a very social activity - I find that we play as much to get the group together as we do to see what happens in the plot next. As a GM my philosophy has always been that if the players plot internally in the group, then I'm not doing something right as a GM - if they begin backstabbing each other, then they'll be doomed, because there are far more dangerous enemies out there, who will kill them all in short order, and they need to stick together to some degree to escape that fate.

 

Is that railroading? I don't think so myself. After all, you must establish a group entity if the game is take off. It's important to remember, though, that the group is usually made up of characters thrown together by circumstance, which means that they are usually allies of convenient more than friends. That's okay, though - you can get a lot of excellent roleplaying out of that. But you must establish a common goal (and often a common enemy) for the group members, or they will have little or no reason to cooperate. I recommend beginning a campaign by throwing the PCs together and then have your campaign villain do something really nasty to them, so that they'll be motivated by lust for revenge

 

As for individual sessions, I don't see that as a major problem. Many GMs don't like running split groups, but I've never felt it was a problem, though the players must accept it too, and I tend to run it on an "equal screentime for all"-basis - if one player in a group of four breaks away from the group, then fine, but he'll get no more than 25% of the game time as a consequence.

[Cantousent]

I prepare all my campaigns extensively in advance, although I'm good at modifying the stats on the fly. I usually have several contingencies in terms of monsters, puzzles, and locations.

 

When it comes to gameplay, I provide puzzles, role-playing opportuities, and combat in more or less equal amounts. I try to tailor the experience to what I know the players will enjoy. I'm willing to play an entire session without combat, which I sometimes provide for players. Unfortunately, the players tend to desire a good amount of combat. They see non-combat games as a fun break from time to time, but get irritated if they can't bash heads most of the time.

[Walsingham]

One of the best games I ever helped run, we had three refs and two players. One lead ref handled plot. One ref handled conversations and descriptions with NPCs. The last ref described and tracked terrain, scenery, and mood effects. Very very cool.