- mllaneza
- Apr 28, 2007
-
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1993-1952
|
I am stealing this in its entirety from GBS.
https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/134751/a-close-look-at-what-roleplaying-is-really-about-and-what-it-is-not
quote:
Many people do not really understand exactly what Roleplaying is, simply because they have not been a part of a Roleplaying group in an online game before, or in a Dungeons & Dragons pen and paper old school style gaming environment.
I think with Star Citizen offering up such a rich environment for RP with it's attempts at bringing a realistic environment and detailed ships and pilot trappings into it's game, that the boards could use a thread where there is discussion of exactly what "roleplaying" actually is, on the part of players and their interactions with one another.
A great many people assume that when you create a character in Star Citizen, you are automatically engaging in roleplay when you first have the character take a step.
After all, you are dressed in a space outfit, you are walking in a real looking hangar, and no doubt our voices will be different than our real voices In life. We will fly spaceships, which we can't do ourselves. Aren't we roleplaying by default?
This widespread belief neglects to consider what roleplay actually is.
There are several things which make roleplaying a much deeper and more immersive experience than simply "letting the game do all the roleplaying"- and that is all a player is doing in the above approach. There isn't any actual roleplaying happening at all.
Roleplaying, in it's most stripped down and basic essence requires EFFORT on the part of the player to "be" someone other than themselves. That is the single basic requirement of this idea.
So, there is no roleplaying element in letting the game make you look and sound like someone else. That is the computer working- not you. There is no roleplay involved in shooting spaceships, that's just you pointing, aiming and blasting things.
You could take away the spacesuit and avatar and shoot stuff in an arcade game at the local mall's change run game room and it would be the same thing- just less fancy. Neither are roleplaying.
***
Many people think that Roleplaying is some kind of difficult, educated, egg-headed thing that not everyone can be good at. From the outside, people who are roleplaying may seem aloof and distant, responding haughtily in character, or not wanting to be brought out of their in-character guise.
While it's true that there are egotistical bast*rds who play roleplaying games, you can find these in all game genres.
For the most part, people who are roleplaying want to keep in character because it's simply a lot more fun and realistic feeling than not being in character. They aren't looking down their noses at you, they are just involved in a different sort of rich gaming experience that gets screwed up when you are brought out of it abruptly.
The truth is, anyone can roleplay. It has nothing to do with being college educated or particularly gifted in any sense. In Star Citizen, you won't even have to be able to type fast, because we will have speech in game.
Roleplaying only requires the abilty to let loose a bit and try to interact as a fictional character of your own. It's very, very much like playing when you were a kid, with friends. The best way to learn to RP is to watch others doing it closely, and follow the same general approach with a character of your own making.
The one reason to actually do this is that roleplaying makes the gaming world unimaginably more interesting and realistic. It's more fun. More about that later.
Lots of folks get stuck on starting. How do I create a character?
Many don't give themselves credit for having an imagination. They think that because they are lousy artists, or have never acted in a play, that they will suck as a roleplayer. The truth is, most of the very best RPers I've witnessed playing have started their very first character in front of me, and found out that they love the idea, once they get started, and have gone on to rich careers with their characters, never "going back" to regular non-RP play. Roleplaying is an addictive, fun way to play "sandbox" and "entire world" games.
Anyone can roleplay- all it takes is the willingness to try.
It's best to have a basic idea of the character you want to play before you start. Some people want detailed backgrounds, with an idea of the upbringing, parents, history of their character.
For others, just starting with the idea that you are a jaded UEE junior officer, a young and enthusiastic son of a space trader, or an escaped slave who stole a spacehip is enough.
It's good to have a couple of character traits to work with to start. A certain laugh, a saying or two the character likes to use, a strong point, like being thrifty and some character flaws like being terrible at math, a basic distrust of others, or a fear for heights can make a starting character distinctive and give he or she a place to start.
One of the most interesting characters I ever met was a charismatic merchant called Nico Black on a Neverwinter Nights server. The player was new, but he did a great job. The guy was very friendly, but really a fantastic trader who would rob you blind. His character would find out where all the better weapons were owned, and made a fortune getting between people and hammering out sales of stuff he didn't own. On the surface he seemed like a friendly stranger in the land who was just getting to know everyone. He had several distinctive written physical habits- he stroked his chin in thought, he tended to throw out this distinctive smile and always carried a rapier with a jeweled handle he was always fiddling with. Eventually, he turned out to be a very evil, stealthy, assassin type- but no one really "knew" this about him, and he evolved into this secret role. It was interesting seeing him keep his veneer of his early, nicer self, even as he grew worse and worse at heart, and his temper would show through from time to time- breaking through his easy façade of good humor, he would fall into uncontrollable rages late in his career.
In any case, creating a few simple "rules" that define your basic character is all you need at the start. Taking that first step- walking up to another RPer and talking to them, not as yourself, but as your made up gal or guy, is the hardest part of the whole process- once you start that first conversation, others will help you to establish your characters as they answer and talk back to you.
It sometimes feels like that the answers your character responds back with come from somewhere else- not from you.
That's one of the real joys of roleplaying- seeing your character seem to come to life of it's own accord. You get to know them so intimately, that you respond intuitively for them without thinking about it, in an almost magical way.
And none of this happens- there is no roleplaying at all- unless you make the attempt.
***
Why should I roleplay at all where Star Citizen is such a rich game to begin with?
As I've touched on a couple of times before, roleplaying is a wonderful enhancer of feelings of realism. Instead of you just viewing what is happening- caring about your ship being blown up, for instance, but not really being that involved, because you are aware you are also eating pizza and half watching reality tv- you will find yourself 100% immersed when you are roleplaying a character you care about and are watching your friends characters, who you have interacted with in endless ways, being in peril, accomplishing great things, and generally "believing" in all that is going down.
Looking back myself over the past decades in which I've roleplayed in countless games, I find that these memories are not like fair memories of "gaming" at all. The times my comrades and I battled dragons or defended our fortress seem very real. They are hundreds of times more vivid in detail and circumstance because my comrades and I shared the experience with feelings of real care about the events.
A lot of times, telling the stories of past battles to newcomers to a guild or squad, around a campfire or table, especially seems to cement the realism of the events.
Somehow when you are telling those stories through the eyes, mouth and ears of someone other than yourself, surrounded by characters that shared these virtual adventures, the gaming world is enhanced, enchanted, brought to life in ways that are hard to fathom.
In short, roleplaying brings magic to your gaming like nothing else can.
***
And to sum up my thoughts on "what Roleplaying is"-
1. Roleplay is not a passive experience controlled by the computer. The trappings of the game are not active roleplay.
2. Roleplay requires other living beings who are also RPing roles. It is, more than anything else, an interactive endeavor. Npcs cannot really "react" to what you do spontaneously, making attempts to RP alone in SP games much less fullfilling and interesting.
3. Roleplaying requires no special skill- only the simple effort of trying.
***
Responses and thoughts are welcome!
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2014 04:31
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2024 00:35
|
|
- mllaneza
- Apr 28, 2007
-
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1993-1952
|
Thanks Xiw !
This guy gets an awful lot wrong, and he's really vehement about it too.
http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=30151
quote:
Most Often, RAW is Simply Right - Today, 11:14 AM
I'm on record as holding the opinion that if one decides to use rules for something, then you stick to and use those rules. By rules here I mean the written game mechanics + written house rules that add/modify or remove specifics from those rules (created after careful and deep consideration of the effect). One makes character decisions as they wish and the GM will make rulings where no rules apply, but the rules are the rules where and whenever they apply binding to both the player and the GM.
If someone doesn't like the result, they should play a game where they do and even go completely without mechanical systems if their tastes are that extreme.
I recently witnessed an great actual play example of why I hold this opinion. It came up in my son's online campaign where RAW was overruled in the middle of a combat. Let's review it here.
System Background
The system in use (Age of Heroes) is rather detailed using a hexgrid, minis (actually the D20 virtual desktop in this case) and terrain. A combatant's position is important under the rules in a number of ways. It is a High Pace of Decision system where tactical error or advantage can quickly decide outcomes, thus what a player does and where his is when doing it is of prime importance in determining the outcome.
Terrain is important in the design and in play. It's key characteristic is that terrain is a constraint upon movement and attacking and those constraints defines its role in combat resolution.
The important RAW in this example is that firing missile weapons into melee combat is dangerous. It's assumed that during the 6 second combat round the player's true position on the hexgrid (while defined) is in truth vague and it's easy for movement during melee to result in the wrong target being stuck. Thus any missile fire into melee will have a 40% change of striking the wrong target. The RAW provides no exception to this.
Actual Play Result
The PCs had reached the root cause of some ritual murders plaguing the kingdom and engaged the evil villains in battle. The most powerful foe was a summoned creature of great size taking up 2 hexes on the battle map. A true danger to the PCs.
One PC was engaged with the monster by a pillar within the room. Another at some distance took aim with his bow and pointed out that his ally (the PC engaged in melee with the monster) had full cover from the pillar (which would normally prevent line of sight and thus range fire that *directly* targeted him), but that the monster had 1 hex clearly in line of sight. Thus the player desired the GM to overrule the RAW concerning firing into melee and rule that the PC could not be hit, but the monster could.
The GM agreed. The analysis struck him as reasonable at the moment and he went with it. I imagine most modern GMs would, even those that are normally RAW players.
Why He Was Horribly Wrong
The GM ignored the abstraction contained in the game design and made the incorrect assumption that the PC's and snake's position was locked and fixed for the entire combat round.
If that was true (or rather assumed true), the rule for firing into melee would never apply in melee and should be reserved only for Close Combat (i.e. characters wresting in the same hex) as melee combatants always occupy different hexes with different lines of sight . This is clearly not the case in the rules that specifically say they apply.
Further, if one still insists on considering the locations 'fixed', case the ability of the PC to defend himself would be heavily constrained by his lack of motion vs. his huge foe. Very heavy negatives should have been applied to the character's defenses, but neither the rules (which know that location is vague) nor the GM (who decided location was fixed) called for such. Thus the overruling of RAW was clearly strictly for the PC's benefit- not that of the reality of 'fixed location'. It was at best, half considered.
The GM altered the purpose of Terrain, which should act as a hindrance to attackers (i.e. providing the monster with cover) and instead turned it into an advantage to the attacker.
It Had Horrible Results
In addition to causing the systems abstraction and simulation elements to fail as noted above, it had a number of negative mechanical and campaign results.
It overpowered Missile Weapons.
The game design provided missile fire with a number of significant advantages in RAW. Beside the obvious issue of being able to attack at range, they are also harder from most creatures to defend against and have a impressive ability to one-shot most targets on a well rolled attack. One of the offsets to these advantages was the firing into melee constraint. That constraint was removed granting even more advantage to already powerful option.
It underpowered Large Creatures
The genre the game was designed for sees large creatures as large threats and the system as a point of genre simulation provides them with a number of advantages towards this end. This ruling however overturned that concept, making them weak against missile fire (which was already a weak point for them).
It resulted in a easy unearned player victory
The Combination of both the above factors led to a quick and easy defeat for what should have been by the RAW a difficult and dangerous encounter with no danger to PCs.
It Set Precedent.
The players will now expect similar rulings in the future. This will go beyond the permanent increase in missile weapon power and reduction in the danger of large creatures and they will expect similar logic to apply in other areas.
Further the GM will likely (consciously or not) reduce his use of terrain in future battles to make things more even against missile users. This will make future battlefields more boring.
Unintended Outcomes
The game design never considered this ruling and thus makes no allowance for it. As a result combat will from this point on will progress with a element unknown to the system, and thus highly likely to be unbalancing in its final effect.
Conclusion
One last thing to note. Overruling RAW is almost always for player benefit as most players will scream bloody murder if the GM suddenly defeats their character in violation of the rules. Even if they don't, most GM will shy away from rulings against the players in any case, as most are not playing to 'defeat' them.
When added to game designs already biased towards player victory (most rpgs are, otherwise long ran campaigns by RAW would be impossible if every combat had a significant chance of player failure), the end result is a even easier campaign where the players have cheated themselves out both the challenge and the simulation the system offered.
So given all the above, why is overruling RAW so common?
Because the typical GM and player never stops to think about it. Until I pointed out the above, everyone in the group (which including three players from my own campaigns) thought they were being clever and that it was cool. They weren't, and it was wasn't. The real battle they bypassed on the other hand could have been.
Whitehall Paraindustries- A blog about RPG Theory and Design
"The purpose of an open mind is to close it, on particular subjects. If you never do — you've simply abdicated the responsibility to think." - William F. Buckley.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2014 05:09
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2014 04:31
