Role-Playing Game

[Sentinel]

RPGing is actually two very distinct elements, combined for our much-beloved hobby.

The role-playing aspect is certainly akin to "amatuer hour" and improv method acting (and frequently improv comedy).

The game aspect is something that once dominated the genre, but has faded in importance as time has gone on.

In the earliest days, when TSR roamed the land, gaming was an evolution of war-gaming. As such, dice rolls and system mechanics were primary determinations about whether a character lived or died. Good role-playing was not a determination, and even if you came up with a good idea or critical plot, you were living and dying by dice rolls. This was the "game" element at work. Rules were inflexible, and the structure of war-gaming was prevalent.
And characters certainly lived and more importantly died more frequently.
It was "only a game" after all: you 'won' by living, surviving and completing the scenario, and 'lost' by dying in the game.
Players invested significantly less time and effort into developing characters, compared to more 'modern' games.

Quite obviously, things have changed.

I will avoid naming any RPG "boogeymen", but many old-timers might guess who I am avoiding invoking.
It was their opinion that role-playing and story-telling was of secondary importance to maintaining the structure of the game.

The earlier topic on breaking the rules made me introspective on this topic, as I have been gaming throughout this particular evolution. I recall when role-playing was a primitive and unsophisticated aspect of gaming. Players rarely spoke as their characters, but instead would say things like "My paladin says, somewhat majestically..." and would statically recite their paladins' line. You acted "in-character" when you did something along a narrow path of character class definition, and were "out-of-character" when you deviated from that path. This was restrictive to creativity however, and eventually role-playing pushed back those boundaries.

Story-telling became more significant, eclipsing the importance of game structure and adherance to system mechanics. If a rule were found to be an impediment to creative method acting or story telling, it was trampled underfoot, a sacrifice for the art of the story.

Characters died less frequently, because the death of a character was anathema to a good story, and certainly, players invested a substantial amount of effort into developing a good character.

Concepts became more and more grandiose, characters became more complex, and campaign worlds took on a diversity that they never possessed previously.

Rules too began to adapt and evolve, although they never completely went away, and continued to maintain a structure around which the campaign was built.
They still determined how characters were built, and how they would interact, whether it be the use of a skill, combat, or escaping a deathtrap.

Today, I feel that gaming has developed it's own systemic polarity, in which you find those who prefer to let story have sway over adherance to structure ("If it's a good story, then let it be..."), vesus those who maintain that if a rule disallows for something, then it cannot be permitted (what ever it is that's being debated at the time).

Feel free to add your thoughts and experiences.

[Natasha]

I am happy it went this way. I do not really like dice and rules.

In fact, I sometimes sit with a friend or two, invent a scenario or situation, and role-play it out with almost no aspect of 'game' involved. Sometimes we make up our characters on the spot in words, sometimes we used ones we played in a RPG. Or instead of sitting we will go walk in a forest and see something to spark a story.

It's like kids playing Army in the neighbourhood, but it's still fun. And it works out ideas for characters and campaigns for when we play the game, which is not always including dice rolling still.

[SkyeFyre]

Beautifully written.

I love the direction it's come.

[Noon]

It was their opinion that role-playing and story-telling was of secondary importance to maintaining the structure of the game.
*snip*
Today, I feel that gaming has developed it's own systemic polarity, in which you find those who prefer to let story have sway over adherance to structure ("If it's a good story, then let it be..."),

A story has structure too - otherwise it's just a pile of stream of conciousness crap. At an elementry level, story has a begining, middle and end, for example. That's structure - that's a rule.

Rules impose a story structure. To stop using rules is to stop using the structure that actually makes a story. To stop using rules is to stop making a story (or atleast ignore the storymaking the current ruleset offers).

Maybe the ruleset you use doesn't make the sorts of stories you want. But that's no reason for giving up rules in terms of making story - it's no reason to give up the basic rule of having a begining, middle and end.

But alot of gamers have thrown rules to the wind, in the interest of 'a better story', and have narratives that just drone on, without middle or end, or even begining in some cases.

[bigbobsr6000]

Personally, as a player I like "hack & slash" vs story line and back ground junk. Point me at the monster and let me attack it. I actually have fallen asleep during game sessions when the party went into town to talk, buy stuff, blah blah blah. My PC's have no background.

Now as a GM I am just the opposite. Role-play, character backgrounds, balance of battles and down time. Mystery, intrigue, political entanglements, etc. I have had whole sessions without a dice roll or a single battle. All seem to enjoyed it.

Like a split personality between GM and Player.

[Natasha]

That's both weird and interesting.

[Natasha]

But alot of gamers have thrown rules to the wind, in the interest of 'a better story', and have narratives that just drone on, without middle or end, or even begining in some cases.

If they throw to the wind and don't actually get better stories, why do they still do it?

[bigbobsr6000]

But alot of gamers have thrown rules to the wind, in the interest of 'a better story', and have narratives that just drone on, without middle or end, or even begining in some cases.

If they throw to the wind and don't actually get better stories, why do they still do it?

Some basic human interaction

[bigbobsr6000]

You're Gamer Bi-Polar.

Oh, great! Yet more Psycho Babble-Baggage I have to take to my Psych appointment Hey! Maybe I'll get even more drugs.

[Natasha]

You're Gamer Bi-Polar.

Oh, great! Yet more Psycho Babble-Baggage I have to take to my Psych appointment Hey! Maybe I'll get even more drugs.

More? Maybe.

Tweak the dosage? Definitely.

[Natasha]

Give yourself shock therapy and up the voltage?

Kip: It's a time machine, Napoleon. We bought it online.
Napoleon Dynamite: Yeah, right.

[Killer Cyborg]

But alot of gamers have thrown rules to the wind, in the interest of 'a better story', and have narratives that just drone on, without middle or end, or even begining in some cases.

If they throw to the wind and don't actually get better stories, why do they still do it?

Because a lot of people can't tell good stories from bad stories.
Or, for that matter, between good stories and mental masturbation.



What, you never read fan fiction?

[Killer Cyborg]

It was their opinion that role-playing and story-telling was of secondary importance to maintaining the structure of the game.
*snip*
Today, I feel that gaming has developed it's own systemic polarity, in which you find those who prefer to let story have sway over adherance to structure ("If it's a good story, then let it be..."),

A story has structure too - otherwise it's just a pile of stream of conciousness crap. At an elementry level, story has a begining, middle and end, for example. That's structure - that's a rule.

Rules impose a story structure. To stop using rules is to stop using the structure that actually makes a story. To stop using rules is to stop making a story (or atleast ignore the storymaking the current ruleset offers).

Maybe the ruleset you use doesn't make the sorts of stories you want. But that's no reason for giving up rules in terms of making story - it's no reason to give up the basic rule of having a begining, middle and end.

But alot of gamers have thrown rules to the wind, in the interest of 'a better story', and have narratives that just drone on, without middle or end, or even begining in some cases.

I can agree with that.

[Sentinel]

But alot of gamers have thrown rules to the wind, in the interest of 'a better story', and have narratives that just drone on, without middle or end, or even begining in some cases.

If they throw to the wind and don't actually get better stories, why do they still do it?

Because a lot of people can't tell good stories from bad stories.
Or, for that matter, between good stories and mental masturbation.



What, you never read fan fiction?

A further point:
Many a good story has suffered from awful execution. You can tell a good story poorly.

Rules impose a story structure. To stop using rules is to stop using the structure that actually makes a story. To stop using rules is to stop making a story (or atleast ignore the storymaking the current ruleset offers).

Agreed.
Although, I do submit that the rules of a good game are not the same rules of a good story, and I am not limiting that to system mechanics.

[Natasha]

Give yourself shock therapy and up the voltage?

Kip: It's a time machine, Napoleon. We bought it online.
Napoleon Dynamite: Yeah, right.

No Geek Points for you, that was a Real Genius reference. Still, you get the consolation prize.

Wasn't going for the geek points, but thanks for the consolation prize

The visual of the time machine in action kills me... everytime.

[Natasha]

What, you never read fan fiction?

I don't read fan fiction. Not because it is necessarily bad (although Harry Potter becoming Russian Orthodox Christian is bad) but because after reading a good story, fan fiction is not necessary. Same after reading a bad story.

A further point:
Many a good story has suffered from awful execution. You can tell a good story poorly.

Telling a good story badly happens so much.

Rules impose a story structure. To stop using rules is to stop using the structure that actually makes a story. To stop using rules is to stop making a story (or atleast ignore the storymaking the current ruleset offers).

Agreed.
Although, I do submit that the rules of a good game are not the same rules of a good story, and I am not limiting that to system mechanics.

And agreed.

[sasha]

We had lots of great stories playing Advanced D&D. I couldn't read or speak English at that time; we didn't even have dice. My first C program was our dice roller on a KVUT.

Perhaps it came with age, but the stories with PB games were even better.

[Natasha]

We had lots of great stories playing Advanced D&D. I couldn't read or speak English at that time; we didn't even have dice. My first C program was our dice roller on a KVUT.

Perhaps it came with age, but the stories with PB games were even better.

Not age, I was there

I think out of the box, AD&D was not a story building game; all those modules I read are just kill everything and avoid the traps. Tombs of Gersidi is a dungeon crawl but it's not so straight forward. So with a bit of work on the GM's part, those old crawls could become story builders.

[Noon]

But alot of gamers have thrown rules to the wind, in the interest of 'a better story', and have narratives that just drone on, without middle or end, or even begining in some cases.

If they throw to the wind and don't actually get better stories, why do they still do it?

Because
A: They think they almost had it this session (if only so and so player didn't do Y or Z). It's like a gambler who keeps going back cause he was so close to the big win. There's a culture of 'Fun this time, guys!'. Like the gambler, they never feel they've completely failed (it was just one bad session!) and just having another go will give a big payoff.
and
B: The books and game company keep telling them that doing this stuff makes a story. The game companys tell them throwing out the rules (ie, 'use the golden rule!') leads to great stories.

[Natasha]

Thanks Noon and Killer Cyborg, it's cleared up for me now.

[bigbobsr6000]

The role playing story is made better when it's started, then creeps into improv. That way, it's not the clichè ending that everyone expects. It's more "I'm interested because I've no idea of where this will lead" and it seldom dissapoints.

I GM on the fly. And since I have no idea what will happen next neither do the players. I react to the situation at hand. Until the players tell me what they are doing or the roll of the die.

[Killer Cyborg]

What, you never read fan fiction?

I don't read fan fiction. Not because it is necessarily bad (although Harry Potter becoming Russian Orthodox Christian is bad) but because after reading a good story, fan fiction is not necessary. Same after reading a bad story.

You should skim around and find some, then compare it to how a lot of people game.
A lot of people essentially want to role-play Mary-Sues.

[Noon]

The role playing story is made better when it's started, then creeps into improv. That way, it's not the clichè ending that everyone expects. It's more "I'm interested because I've no idea of where this will lead" and it seldom dissapoints.

Not...entirely. If there isn't a fixed end condition, then the game just keeps going on until someone gets exactly the ending they want (usually the GM). And it's not hard to second guess the ending they want. By fixed end condition, I mean when you arrive at it, however things are, that's the end. It doesn't decide what the end is, it just determines that the end has come. A basic example is something like a point count, perhaps randomised.

[Jerell]

One of my players, playing a monk once asked an NPC, "What is an end, but a beginning of something new."

I'm all for closing story arcs. But not for ending the bigger story, the shaping of events and lives on Palladia. I like what bigbob said. I like to set the major players, and their goals, and let fate (dice) go from there most of the time, not ALWAYS, but most of the time. Try to work in certain events as a rough guideline. While as GM we have the option to "tell" a story, I think the players should have just as much control on their story as we do.

As the pirates near the Land of the Southwinds will tell you, the GM code, "Is acually more like guidelines." We've freedom to do as we like, of course. To each, their own.

[bigbobsr6000]

My biggest problem is coming up with names for charcters/NPC's. I know there are name gens and I use them. I will also pick out a random first name and then a random last name in a phonebook. These I may tweak abit as needed. Same with names of establishments like pubs, magic shops, weapon stores, etc.

Does anyone else have one thing that is hard(er) for them to do in role-playing story telling?

[sasha]

My biggest problem is coming up with names for charcters/NPC's. I know there are name gens and I use them. I will also pick out a random first name and then a random last name in a phonebook. These I may tweak abit as needed. Same with names of establishments like pubs, magic shops, weapon stores, etc.

Does anyone else have one thing that is hard(er) for them to do in role-playing story telling?

I improv a lot, too.

Sometimes I lose track of things I said 3 months ago.

[sasha]

My biggest problem is coming up with names for charcters/NPC's. I know there are name gens and I use them. I will also pick out a random first name and then a random last name in a phonebook. These I may tweak abit as needed. Same with names of establishments like pubs, magic shops, weapon stores, etc.

Does anyone else have one thing that is hard(er) for them to do in role-playing story telling?

I improv a lot, too.

Sometimes I lose track of things I said 3 months ago.

You're ok if your players forget too.

So true.

Unfortunately, The Girl remembers everything.

[sasha]

My biggest problem is coming up with names for charcters/NPC's. I know there are name gens and I use them. I will also pick out a random first name and then a random last name in a phonebook. These I may tweak abit as needed. Same with names of establishments like pubs, magic shops, weapon stores, etc.

Does anyone else have one thing that is hard(er) for them to do in role-playing story telling?

I improv a lot, too.

Sometimes I lose track of things I said 3 months ago.

You're ok if your players forget too.

So true.

Unfortunately, The Girl remembers everything.

Natasha is evil that way?

That's one of the ways, yea

But it has improved my improv.

[sasha]

Well, she has her moments.

We were playing TMNT and they hired a mountain guide to help them to the other side. A while later they hired him again to get a friend over.

"Wait a sec," she says holding up her hand, "last time we hired this guy he said he never forgets a face but he doesn't recognise me?"

"He was wrong. You're very forgettable."

"I'm a f'ing mutant reindeer for the gods' sake."

"He smuggles for a living. You're not his first mutant reindeer, you won't be his last. Don't flatter yourself."

"Meh. "


If we play I just borrow her notes and make a copy for myself

[Natasha]

:lol: That's just wrong!

It was very wrong. I fixed it up for him though.

[Natasha]

What, you never read fan fiction?

I don't read fan fiction. Not because it is necessarily bad (although Harry Potter becoming Russian Orthodox Christian is bad) but because after reading a good story, fan fiction is not necessary. Same after reading a bad story.

You should skim around and find some, then compare it to how a lot of people game.
A lot of people essentially want to role-play Mary-Sues.

I can't get into sociology.

How are these people different from a powergamer?

[Natasha]

:lol: That's just wrong!

It was very wrong. I fixed it up for him though.

Where would we be without you to fix us?

80,000 B.C. +/- 10,000 years.

[Natasha]

:lol: That's just wrong!

It was very wrong. I fixed it up for him though.

Where would we be without you to fix us?

80,000 B.C. +/- 10,000 years.

So stuck in bad movies?

In that First Look crap they do before the previews even they gave a trailer for that 25,000 B.C. movie and they had the director and writer on there sucking their own.... and I was like, "good time to go to the loo". Only I came back to watch Jumper - just watch the Jumper preview, it's way better than the movie.

If people love wasting so much money, instead of making miserable movies just give it to me and allow to show you that yes money does buy happiness.

But yea role-playing was the topic

[Killer Cyborg]

What, you never read fan fiction?

I don't read fan fiction. Not because it is necessarily bad (although Harry Potter becoming Russian Orthodox Christian is bad) but because after reading a good story, fan fiction is not necessary. Same after reading a bad story.

You should skim around and find some, then compare it to how a lot of people game.
A lot of people essentially want to role-play Mary-Sues.

I can't get into sociology.

How are these people different from a powergamer?

Because Powergamers aren't necessarily Munchkins, but Mary Sues effectively are.
A Powergamer is just somebody who likes to play powerful characters. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you're up against foes of the same power level. Most power gamers still want a challenge.

A Munchkin throws a fit if their character isn't perfect (or, at least, the most powerful and perfect being in the game/campaign). They can't stand a good challenge. They're just bullies who like to beat up on imaginary people.

A Mary Sue doesn't have to be powerful, but they're not looking for a challenge either. A Mary Sue may not have huge guns/powers to overcompensate for their shortcomings, but they're the center of the universe; little to nothing happens without them being a catalyst.
Take Wesley Crusher for example. Sure, there were plenty of episodes where he wasn't really involved, but when he was involved, he typically saved the captain, the ship, or the universe.
Often by doing something that pretty much anybody else with a brain would have thought of (remember the time where he turned out to be the first person in the Federation to think of throwing a Tractor Beam in reverse?).
A Munchkin version of Wesley would have done all that, AND had a suit of badass power armor, and maybe a magic katana.

Then there's Anita Blake.
Kind of munchy, in that she's super-powerful, but she's not really Munchkin because she's effectively at the mercy of the Universe. The plot of the last X books has been the same: "Anita's powers go out of control and disrupt her personal life."
No Munchkin would put up with that for very long; control is their fetish. Any GM started pulling the old "Suddenly, you can't control yourself and more, and you _______" crap, and it'd be super-munchkin-fit time.
Anita's still a Mary Sue, though, because little to nothing happens in the Anita-verse that doesn't revolve around her. Jeane-Claude is only Master of the City because of her, he only founded his own bloodline because of her, and even though he's this super badass master vampire, he still can't solve any problems without her help.
Neither can Death-Incarnate himself, Edward.
Neither can her other (on and off) boyfriend, Richard the werewolf.
Head of his clan, but can't do jack without Anita's help.

In RPGs this translates to the PCs that the universe revolves around.
They're the first and only people to think, "Hey... let's just forge some Credits using our Telemechanics!"
They're the first and only people to think... well, anything.
With Mary Sues, it's not that they're necessarily super-powerful; it's that pretty much everybody else in the world is lame and stupid.

There's a lot of overlap between Munchkins and Mary Sues, though.
Perfect non-role-playing example would be Johnathan in the Buffy the Vampire episode Superstar, where he does everything from training Buffy to starring in The Matrix.

[Sentinel]

Topic Tangent: Rules.

The Game element of role-playing brings rules with it.
And while many deride them, they are an important facet of gaming.

Rules determine how a character is generated, and what equipment a character begins with: rules keep every character from having 42 in every stat and every bad-@$$ weapon in the book(s).

Rules determine the structure and pacing of game combat: this may not be to everyones satisfaction (and to be fair, no RPG combat system is perfect). But, it ensures everyone gets a turn, and establishes advantages and disadvantages in such combats.

Rules are an important element to the role-playing experience because it prevent it from deteriorating into a juvenile session of "let's pretend" where everyone does whatever the heck they want to do.

[Natasha]

Rules are an important element to the role-playing experience

Perhaps.

I play "let's pretend" a lot. And it's not juvenile.

Although even "let's pretend" has some rules built-in.

[Sentinel]

Rules are an important element to the role-playing experience

Perhaps.

I play "let's pretend" a lot. And it's not juvenile.

Although even "let's pretend" has some rules built-in.

I should clarify:

It does not have to be juvenile, but it often is.
I was speaking more to the less refined puerile version.

[Vrykolas2k]

My biggest problem is coming up with names for charcters/NPC's. I know there are name gens and I use them. I will also pick out a random first name and then a random last name in a phonebook. These I may tweak abit as needed. Same with names of establishments like pubs, magic shops, weapon stores, etc.

Does anyone else have one thing that is hard(er) for them to do in role-playing story telling?

I improv a lot, too.

Sometimes I lose track of things I said 3 months ago.

I write stuff down, if it matters...

[bigbobsr6000]

Rules are an important element to the role-playing experience because it prevent it from deteriorating into a juvenile session of "let's pretend" where everyone does whatever the heck they want to do.

"Rules, we don't need no stinkin' rules...."

I don't get hung up on rules. Especailly in "Fantasy" RPGs. In Fantasy anything and nothing is possible, as I have said before. If not, then it can not be called "Fantasy", it's just another boring game with a bunch of comfining rules.

Now, that being said. I still use rules in gaming, but I do not call it in anyway, shape or form Fantasy Role-Playin Game. It's just a RPG with some imaginary settings, weapons, creatures and such.

Rules limit the imagination....And please, don't try to sway me on this issue. No matter the aguements or facts, this is my belief. And I have felt this way ever sense I could remember.

Enjoy

[Natasha]

And I have felt this way ever sense I could remember.

With all the drugs that's what? Yesterday?

But still, I agree. Breaking rules or even throwing them out does mean a bad story is inevitable. Just like sticking to the rules doesn't mean a good story is.

More likely? Maybe.

[bigbobsr6000]

And I have felt this way ever sense I could remember.

With all the drugs that's what? Yesterday?

But still, I agree. Breaking rules or even throwing them out does mean a bad story is inevitable. Just like sticking to the rules doesn't mean a good story is.

More likely? Maybe.

Grew up in the Sixties. I think, I remember like New Year's Eve, 1959 and then the next I remember is New Year's Day 1970.

Like Wow, man.....the colors...THE COLORS....THE COLORS....

Sorry, Sixities flashback.......

[Sentinel]

If a player decides they want a P.P. of 100 and a pistol that shoots through planets, does not mean they should have one.
Rules prevent that sort of ludicrousness.

[Vrykolas2k]

If a player decides they want a P.P. of 100 and a pistol that shoots through planets, does not mean they should have one.
Rules prevent that sort of ludicrousness.

Also limit munchkin GMs... as does the ability to leave.

[bigbobsr6000]

If a player decides they want a P.P. of 100 and a pistol that shoots through planets, does not mean they should have one.
Rules prevent that sort of ludicrousness.

If that is the kind of campaign they want, I can and have done it.

I have GM'd PCs who could destroy whole planets (and did) in battles with their powers. As example, one was knocked through a planet during a battle, destroying it. They fought NPCs that could do the same. I have no problem with powerful stuff.

I tell Players, whatever that get, my NPC's can have as well and vice a' versa.

Its just a problem for me.

[Natasha]

If a player decides they want a P.P. of 100 and a pistol that shoots through planets, does not mean they should have one.
Rules prevent that sort of ludicrousness.

So does maturity, common sense, and then there are the times when that's the name of the game, so to speak

[Killer Cyborg]

Rules are an important element to the role-playing experience

Perhaps.

I play "let's pretend" a lot. And it's not juvenile.

Although even "let's pretend" has some rules built-in.

I should clarify:

It does not have to be juvenile, but it often is.
I was speaking more to the less refined puerile version.

The kind that devolves into:
"Bang, bang! I shot you!"
"No, You missed!"
"No I didn't!"
"Yes you did!"

(repeat ad nauseam, until somebody says "dodge this" and throws a punch, stick, rock, etc.)

[Natasha]

Rules are an important element to the role-playing experience

Perhaps.

I play "let's pretend" a lot. And it's not juvenile.

Although even "let's pretend" has some rules built-in.

I should clarify:

It does not have to be juvenile, but it often is.
I was speaking more to the less refined puerile version.

The kind that devolves into:
"Bang, bang! I shot you!"
"No, You missed!"
"No I didn't!"
"Yes you did!"

(repeat ad nauseam, until somebody says "dodge this" and throws a punch, stick, rock, etc.)

Some games require rules.
Some players require rules.

The good ones don't mind getting shot with finger pistolas

[Killer Cyborg]

The good ones don't mind getting shot with finger pistolas

(There's about a dozen jokes here, but most would get me banned. So just pretend that I said one of the funnier ones. )

[Vrykolas2k]

If a player decides they want a P.P. of 100 and a pistol that shoots through planets, does not mean they should have one.
Rules prevent that sort of ludicrousness.

If that is the kind of campaign they want, I can and have done it.

I have GM'd PCs who could destroy whole planets (and did) in battles with their powers. As example, one was knocked through a planet during a battle, destroying it. They fought NPCs that could do the same. I have no problem with powerful stuff.

I tell Players, whatever that get, my NPC's can have as well and vice a' versa.

Its just a problem for me.

In the old d6 Star Wars, I spent 5 Force Points and cracked a planet in half with my lightsabre... perfectly legal.
I only did it because the GM was being an ass-hat and had made an illegal NPC and that was the only way to kill it.

[Natasha]

The good ones don't mind getting shot with finger pistolas

(There's about a dozen jokes here, but most would get me banned. So just pretend that I said one of the funnier ones. )

;-)

It makes me giggle a little bit.