gamegrene.com

Wow. Where to begin?

First of all, dwhoward, this is an extremely thought-provoking article. However, it also happens to be an article that reaches conclusions with which I profoundly disagree, and here's why.

I guess I just don't see why it's such a bad thing to occasionally play a character who knows less about the world than the player. Note that I said occasionally. Most of the time, most people will play characters who have at least a cursory knowledge of the world, enough to get through and face adversaries to the best of their ability (except in games like Hunter, of course, where the point is to discover things about the setting as you go along, but that's an entirely different can of worms). This is, as you say, a time when metagaming is good, since it lets the game flow more smoothly and lets the party accomplish more. There are plenty of situations in which it's obnoxious and inappropriate to play an ignorant character. On that I agree with you 100%.

However, I've found that at other times, it can be a fascinating experience to throw out everything and start again. It just doesn't work all the time. In a goal-oriented adventure such as the ones you describe, yes, it's annoying. But what if the GM and the players agree to play inexperienced adventurers, effectively making a campaign that is character-driven instead of goal-driven? I mean, if all the PCs are equally ignorant and the GM focuses on their journey of discovery, isn't that an accomplishment in its own rite for them to overcome their own ignorance and become established adventurers? Maybe it's a question of personal preference and we fall on opposite ends of this particular spectrum, but I don't see how you can say that it's "dumb" and "a sin" for me to prefer a more story- and acting-oriented campaign to one that focuses on battles and tactics.

"Role-playing is not an excuse to act cowardly, be lazy, be incompetent or to fail." Frankly, that sentence is extremely disturbing to me. You spend the entire article talking about the need to "win" at an RPG when I don't know if such a thing is even possible. For the past three years I've probably spent an average of 20 hours a week either roleplaying or doing things related to this hobby, and I don't have a single medal or trophy to show for it. And I like it that way. What do you get out of "winning" a campaign anyway? Bragging rights to say you defeated a certain monster in 5 rounds or finished a certain dungeon in under an hour? Who do you crow to about something like that? The average person is not going to understand or care. So what's it worth, really?

For me, not much. The things I've gained from gaming are the best friends I've ever made and *AMAZING STORIES* that keep me coming back week after week. When I find myself thinking about the Hunter campaign I play in when I should be concentrating on class or work (which is far too often), I'm not pondering how to defeat werewolves or zombies in the most efficient way, or rehashing highlights of battles past. I'm wondering whether my character will ever work out her differences and get along with the Defender, or whether she'll be able to continue her relationship with her vampire boyfriend (and what will happen when other hunters find out!), or whether the former enemy she turned into an ally is going to stab her in the back again. Now maybe the average person still won't care about that sort of thing. In fact, I bet they won't. But I've found that battles come and go and are forgotten, whereas stories about the interactions between characters are the ones that get retold again and again.

Now I've finished plenty of storylines and killed plenty of monsters with a well-thought-out strategy, but in all honesty they haven't meant much to me. Sure, I've been proud of my skill, but it's the same kind of short-lived, sickly pride you get from winning at Monopoly. There have been exactly two occasions in my entire gaming career in which I felt as though I "won" an adventure (if such a thing is even possible). The first time, my character made the mistake of trusting the enemy and died a humiliating and ignoble death at his hands - but her death provided the impetus for a moral renewal of the rest of the party, who adopted her pacifistic worldview in honor and tribute. The second time, my character sacrificed her life in order to preserve the existence of an institution in which she had always believed very strongly, and which would have ceased to exist if she hadn't done what she did. By your standards, I lost and I was a cowardly, lazy, incompetent failure. But in both cases, I felt that I won because I single-handedly transformed and influenced the storyline of the campaign (and, in the second case, the game world). Without my actions, the campaign would not have gone the way it did. In general, finishing one dungeon or killing one monster is not as satisfying as that.

I guess what I'm ultimately trying to say is, if you're so focused on winning why are you roleplaying in the first place? Why not go back to wargaming, or board games, or card games, where you are rewarded only for good strategy and you don't have to go to the trouble of making a character that's only going to be a distraction? We play ROLE-PLAYING GAMES, for crying out loud. The name itself states that taking on the role of a character (and, thus, a certain acting component) is integral to making our hobby the way it is. That's the role of a CHARACTER, not the role of a collection of dots on a piece of paper. Part of what makes gaming so entertaining for me is that unpredictability that you get whenever you throw humans (or elves, or dwarves, or whatever) into a purely tactical situation. In real wars and in real battles, the company doesn't always work like a perfectly oiled machine. Soldiers get scared, they piss themselves, they retreat when they're supposed to be fighting, they forget or don't know basic facts about the enemy and have to surpass that.

Let me put it this way. Do you want to see a war movie where the heroes triumph without a hitch, where there's no setbacks and only the bad guys get killed? Of course not! Part of the fun is in watching everything go against the heroes, yet in spite of adversity and against all odds they triumph. That's drama. Not super-soldiers who suddenly remember the grenade in their back pocket or the bit of metagamey information they yank down from the heavens. Sometimes playing dumb makes the best story - and in the end, it's the story that matters to me, not the death toll.

Maybe in the end it's a question of player preference. Maybe you grew up on D&D while I grew up on White Wolf, and that's why we'll never see eye to eye on this question. Maybe it's just that my favorite game is Hunter: The Reckoning, in which the characters begin ignorant not only of the enemy but of their own powers and maybe get a little bit of insight into the World of Darkness before they fall in battle, and which commits every so-called "sin" you've spoken of and still manages to be the most compelling and well-crafted game I have ever had the privilege to play. Maybe it just boils down to the fact that I am a "sissified actor," and I will never be a "competitive gamer," and every day I'm proud of that. I know you won't agree with what I have to say, but I know that the "acting" you disdain so resoundingly is the reason I keep gaming even in the face of gamers who promote this sort of tedious hack-n-slash mayhem, and I know that I'm not alone in believing this. But f you can't handle the fact that for many gamers, a substantial part of any good campaign will always be an "acting gig," go back to Monopoly and Crazy Eights instead of insulting my personal preferences and telling me that I'm stupid for wanting to tell a story more than I want to roll my THAC0 for the millionth time.

Hey, you want to play a combat-based game, go ahead. But don't tell
me to, and don't act like it's the wrong way to play it if I don't.

The introduction was not forgotten. It's on the front page of the website.

This article is filed under "Rants" and a rant is meant to be over-the-top. That is why this piece is so extreme. In real life (and in the article, too, if you read carefully and ignore the obvious baiting), I do not have a problem with roleplaying. I am not anti-roleplaying. I have a problem with roleplaying as an excuse. Roleplaying is fine as a topper on superb tactical play.

I understand how people can say, "It's a ROLEPLAYING game."

And, I say in response, "It's a roleplaying GAME."

A game implies competition and scoring. It implies striving to be the best by using all your own skills and wits in the competition. Be it D&D or golf.

Now a person can roleplay and not be in a game. A person can roleplay for a job interview. A person can act in a play. A person can merely imagine some situation and use conjecture to imagine how a certain type of person in a certain type of world may react to it. And, that's fine. (Just like a person can putt around the green but not really be "playing" golf.)

But that's not really D&D. (I won't speak of other games because there is some pretty weird stuff out there where the point can be truly bizarre.) Roleplaying is a part of the game, not the sole point of it.

Not if their character sucks at tactics.

Competition I can understand...the PCs trying to best the antagonist, or in some cases even establish superiority within the party. Yes, that's an essential part of roleplaying, and always should be. But scoring? I'm not seeing a built-in scoring system anywhere in roleplaying, be it D&D or any other system. And "striving to be the best" can take many forms. Being the best tactician and the best in battle means a lot to you, just as being true to my character (even if that means playing dumb) means a lot to me. The beautiful thing about RPGs is that you can choose to focus on either the roleplaying or the game aspect, and mix them in whatever way you want. So I don't think a lengthy article effectively insulting those who choose the other path is the best way to promote your own personal opinion about RPGs.

Yes, I realize that it's a rant, and it's supposed to be opinionated. I realize that you're not anti-story or anti-character. And I will admit that after reading your clarifications I feel somewhat less insulted. But I still feel insulted, mostly because I don't see it as this great threat to all roleplaying everywhere if some players get permission from the GM and the rest of the group and decide it would be an interesting challenge to play a character who knows less about the gameworld than the player does.

Oh, well.

Almost everything in life involves compromises between two ideas. This is one of those compromises. Deal.

It seems to me this argument is very petty, but I love petty arguments so I'll jump right in. ;)

Personaly, I like a balance. There are times I like to kill things, times I like to act, and I particularely like it when the two are combined. It's quite easy, really. Does your character chop the orc in half with a cruel sadistic laugh, or give him an elegant blow to the head while smiling a crooked, cocky grin and laughing an arrogant laugh? But that's just my view, and the important part about personal views is that they just don't matter to anyone but the person they belong to.

That's my stance on this argument. It just doesn't matter. To quote DWHoward, "It's a roleplaying GAME." That's the imporant point, really, but in any game, the goal is not to win. Don't get me wrong, you shouldn't *not* try to win, but if you only play to do so you shouldn't be playing in the first place. The goal is to have fun. If you enjoy killing things, then do so. If you enjoy acting, then do so. If you enjoy both, do so, but remember that a lot of people don't like both so only do it with people who enjoy it.

In the case presented in the original rant, it is quite clear the problem is just different gaming styles. If you don't like having both in the game, or only want to have them at specific time to render designing killfests easier, then talk to whoever you're playing with who is causing the problems and fix it.

There, I'm done my fence sitting. Now I'm going to go join canada's liberal party, as I feel I am quite good at sitting upon fences.

Now, unlike a player, acting is essential to a GM's job. A GM should not be playing NPCs and monsters using all of his available knowledge and tactical ability; he should be rendering them in a realistic and believable manner. He takes the part of these creatures but should have no vested interest in their survival.

Contrarily, a player is not a GM who merely runs a single NPC. A player should use all of his knowledge and tactical ability to play his PC. He can also use roleplaying to flesh out his PC and add spice to the game.

It is the GM's job to hobble and police the players, not the players themselves. The players should not be mini-GMs, refereeing and censoring themselves to determine what is valid and what is not. (Obviously, a player should not try to warp or fast-talk the GM. I'm not advocating that!) As players, they should have a vested interest in their PCs. Whereas a GM is disinterested in an NPC, a player should be interested in his PC.

A GM can set the value of the bits of metagame knowledge that his players have. By varying his game from the standard, he can invalidate some or all of the knowledge that players have gained from reading the "GM only" books. For example, a GM can invent a whole new monster and the player's knowledge of the Monster Manual will be invalidated. So, players should not be concerned that the GM needs "help". A GM can always use decisions by fiat and variations to control the game (even to the point where players have no choice at all!).

If people love acting, the GM's chair is really the proper place.

(A good analogy might be a soccer game. The referee defines the bounds of the game and enforces the rules. A player is conscious but not supra-conscious of the rules. A player obeys the rules but his primary concern is to play his position to the best of his ability. If he gets called for "offsides" occasionally, that's ok. His job isn't to be the referee nor to referee himself. Pushing the rules and boundaries is considered good, competitive play, in some cases. And, finally, a good soccer player is more than just somebody who knows all the rules and follows them to a T.)

Certainly, running away is a valid option and, sometimes, the best option. (Of course, there are other situations where running away is one of the worst options.) A player who doesn't roleplay at all can have his PC run away.

As for the rest, I'm still digesting it.

I think that people should be allowed to play a game their own way, should it be an exercise in method-acting or a hack-fest. Different people have different ideas of a good time.

RP doesn't have to disappear as soon as you go into a dungeon necessarily. If it can be worked in without sabotaging the party and without boring the rest of the people in your group, that's ok. Just, in general, dungeons tend to be places where other skills are more vital and a focus on roleplaying can sabotage the party. The group should be working together as a team in a dungeon to overcome obstacles. Not letting individual agendas promote strife, distrust or distractions from the dungeon at hand in the ranks. If you can throw some RP in and it won't affect the outcome of the dungeon negatively, go for it.

I understand. You're taking the altrustic viewpoint.

But you're going about it in the wrong way. The good of the many may outweigh the needs of the few, but let that be attempted by the characters.

Many of us in this life try hard to act well, but our intentions are mitigated by natural disagreements. Not getting along with other people. Let the characters get along by themselves - do you really have the right to enforce perfect cooperation on them?

Especially when you yourself are only using your own idealized view of perfection? The characters could be right, you know. Whatever THEY would naturally do, might be the best thing to solve the problem, and your need to exert personal control over their lives blinds you to their potential.

So, no, gaming should not excuse poor roleplaying :P

-Coilean mac Caiside

"I've got to stand by my rant here, though. I've got no objection to roleplaying. I've got an objection to people who slow down or sabotage the game with their playing style."

It may surprise you, Dhoward, but there are other people playing in the game (and they're not just figments of your imagination - they're figments of mine, and so are you) - people besides you that have a vested interest in how the game turns out, and their idea of it may not mesh with yours. Things may not turn out exactly as you want them, and you're right to blame the other players, but not right to call it a bad thing. The game is not dictated by you alone. There are other players, and what their characters want or they want may come into it. They've slowed down your plans, or even sabotaged them entirely? Well hey, oh well, get over it and try again (you DID select a venue of competition other than lethal combat, didn't you? Oh dear).

-Coilean mac Caiside

Sorry if my post was unclear, it was a 1:00am response in my time, so it pretty much just streamed straight from my unconsciousness. :)

Overall I am not really intending to say anything about the military, nor dangerous careers. My point is that in a game world characters often should KNOW more about the world then the people playing them THINK they should know, and often overplay ignorance in their character because of that. I mean, it's not like we are talking about Paranoia here. A troll is a big scary monster which is not mythical. Not everyone may have seen it, but if they live near by to where you grew up you probably would have heard of them, just as people may nt have ever seen a shark, or a tiger or a bear, but have heard of them in our world, and justifiably know a little about them.

My second paragraph was simply stating that when given ANY sort of challenge in the game, be it how the group should act together tactically to beat the troll, how my character would solve a riddle, how people will barter or even plan politically then their will be a difference, a gap, in both the intentions of a player and their character and the knowledge of the player and their character.

Now, if you are simply GAMING, then you are using the intentions of your character but all your own god like knowledge of the world to your best advantage.

If you are only playing a ROLE, you will try and simulate the knowledge of your character and use THAT to achieve the intended result, which MAY make you worse at the GAMING side.

But it MAY make you better, and THIS is where a GM's refereeing skill is important. Being able to identify whether your character realistically might know something about the creature you are encountering, even if the rules don't dictate that they definitely might (for example no monster proficiency), whether they SHOULD know something about the monster you are fighting (again, if someone had monster proficiency in a world were Trolls were a fairly common threat, I'd assume regardless of any roll that they knew they were hurt by fire. However, they might not be informed that if you DON'T light them up they are going to regenerate, but only if the rolled really poorly.) and whether they SHOULDN'T know anything about the particular monster (i.e they are in a foreign land, or the monster is so ancient and terrible that no one in the past 10,000 years has even heard of it, or they are encountering the first critter of it's kind or whatever.)

It is the GM who should be setting the standard of knowledge for the game world, the local wisdom everyne has imbued on them as children, and she should convey this amount of knowledge throughout the game to her players. So when a players character SHOULD know something, but the player doesn't, the GM should inform them. EQUALLY when a players character SHOULDN'T know something, but the player does, the GM should inform them (preferably before the middle of an encounter. just by reminding them of their characters lack of in game knowledge at the beginning).
And finally, when a player decides their character SHOULDN'T know something, then it is equally up to the GM to decide if that player is right in that assumption.

All these things can be done by forcing stat checks (the 'fair' way of doing things), hiding information from the players, or some other solution

e.g
GM: "A huge shambling thing is attacking you from the shadows!"
Player: "What does it look like?"
GM, quickly consulting character sheet notices that the character has no monster proficiency and that the player realistically would have no idea what it might be. "It's terrifying, you've never seen anything like it, now what ar you going to do before it eats you!?"
He then passes a note to the player with Monster Lore or whatever, the note says "It's a troll.".

So basically dwhoward, I agree with you, players shouldn't be making constant assumptions about what their characters should or shouldn't know on the basis that they are simply 'roleplaying' their character. The GM should be in control of that, as they are in control of both the necessities of the adventure, and the game world at large.

Whether the GM chooses to try and get around OOC knowledge or a percieved lack there of by hiding information or providing it to the group; by creating new knowledge that the players couldn't possibly have and the providing it to those in the group who might; by simply letting it slide in combat situations because the players are going to need all the luck and skill they have anyway, and then when it's all over expect them to say 'What the heck was that!?' and not know they just killed a troll (which in turn could provide them less experience, after all, their characters may not have figured out it was the fire that killed it, even though the players know, thus the characters just got 'lucky' that time and didn't learn anything, unless they investigate the situation further) or some other solution which isn't immediately obvious should be up to the GM.

A player should not be rewarded for playing dumb and getting someone killed, especially if the GM disagrees about the amount of knowledge that character should have. If the GM finds it reasonable that the character doesn't have the required game knowledge, then if the player roleplays that then it's not a bad thing, because in my view it simply means the GM does not have to find a work around like above. Again, no REAL benefit should be accrued, unless in the course of the adventure the player did something particularly entertaining or creative when roleplaying.

After all, I think you are aiming a little low in the ROLEplaying aspect if you are rewarding people for simply staying in character. Additionally you are aiming WAY too low in the GAMING aspect if you aren't challenging your players and have to constantly prevent them from being killed because of how they are playing their roles.

I agree with Caliban's latest post, I think.

My rant is against players focusing too much on self-censoring and not enough on gaming. I simplify it a little further than he does: I say that players should never worry about metagame or OOC information. GMs should just compensate for it with creativity (e.g. "this thing that you call a troll doesn't seem to react to fire") or rulings (e.g. "Sorry, Bob. That's over-the-top. You can't make gunpowder in Greyhawk.").

Of course, people can play in whatever style they want, as long as it is mutually agreed. I actively discourage people from making a big deal out of metagame and OOC information. I think that it isn't fun and prematurely shortens campaigns, even when the player may think that he's being a good player by making a big deal out of it. That's an opinion. I can respect that others may have other opinions on the subject (but, naturally, I think that my opinion is the best one to have).

To summarize, I offer GAMING (i.e. mixing player and PC knowledge for maximum effectiveness) as the way to have the best game. I can understand that others might think ROLE (i.e. carefully keeping OOC information) is the better way to go. While I don't agree and actively discourage it, ROLE is the contrary and more popular view.

You seem to be emphasizing a return to the "rote memorization" school of competence - but people who work with their characters, will be forced to innovate, to come up with a NEW trick to overcome the difficulty. Perhaps this is why non-combat problems disturb you so much - the same solution will not work twice guaranteed. In wargames, two equal armies are affected by the terrain, dice, and their generals. You seem to be advocating the return to dice alone.

Now, I am of the "players exercising their minds to create something new is good" school of thought. Your implication here is that players should not be under any requirement for creativity, that indeed, the "way of doing things" should preclude any but the traditional solutions!

Your view of "GAMING" seems very narrow. Are you sure you even have the right word?

-Coilean mac Caiside

I played soccer for many years, and was quite good at it. I left when it stopped being recreational. People do have a choice ("I think you are suicidal, but I will go into the dungeon with you to help in keeping you alive until you realize the folly of your ways. I will not help you to kill the monsters, because I have no quarrel with them. I may even try to alert them of your intentions before-hand, if I think you would forgive me, so that you could see your cause was hopeless and leave.").

And my point, actually, was that you did not go on and on about how vaguely horrible those views were, giving everyone such an impression prior to even hearing what you had to say. You gave your opinion of a situation; you did not attempt to force any bias on them before they were fully exposed to the topic.

-Coilean mac Caiside

dwhoward said: "I agree with Caliban's latest post, I think.

My rant is against players focusing too much on self-censoring and not enough on gaming. I simplify it a little further than he does: I say that players should never worry about metagame or OOC information. GMs should just compensate for it with creativity (e.g. "this thing that you call a troll doesn't seem to react to fire") or rulings (e.g. "Sorry, Bob. That's over-the-top. You can't make gunpowder in Greyhawk.")."

Yeah, that's pretty much the crux of the matter. My interpretation is that if players worry about it enough to stay in character, but AS those characters make tactically sound choices with the knowledge at hand, then NEITHER GM nor Player has to compensate.

I mean, if a party is about to head into a dungeon, filled with creepy crawlies, for some reason or another, and nobody has bothered to ask the locals what sort of creepy crawlies they are, and/or each other what they should do when they come up against said creepy crawlies, don't you have a pretty dumb group of adventurers on your hands?

Alternatively, if a GM sends a bunch of totally inexperienced adventurers against a bunch of critters who have very specific weaknesses that need to be exploited for them to be able to beat them, isn't the GM being a bit dumb assuming the ADVENTURERS will know hot to beat the monsters, even if he knows for sure that the players will.

As the old boy scout motto goes: "Be prepared."

Also, D&D and most other roleplaying games aren't tactical combat games as has been said above, although the often have a tactical combat element.

Meanwhile, there are games out there (like Games Workshops Warhammer Quest) which is a tactical combat game, with a roleplaying element.

Heck, isn't their a pen and paper game out their based purely on tactical combat, Rune or something, where it awards players points etc?

As gaming has become more widespread almost every wish or want can be catered to in different games, so while I appreciate your opinion and think you are probably right to make the call that there is an over abundance of people who gloss over the gaming aspect a bit too much, I don't think you are right in implying that particular type of gaming has totally taken over the hobby or has become fashionable to the point of ridicule. I think people who like the tactical style of game might just be playing different games more suited to it.

In saying that, I have more than once seen a pick up game of 3rd ed D&D where people just rolled up some stats and went monster hunting, and the people who were playing knew that's what they were in for and had a great deal of fun, so in my opinon there is no real reason to rail against either side.

As usual if you know what you signed up for, then you are not likely to complain when you play it. It's only when people stop asking the question "What sort of D&D game is it going to be?" or even "What sort of roleplaying game?" that people start to make assumptions and are disappointed when the get something they didn't really want.

After all assumptions, as we all know, are the mother of all fuck ups.

I'd like to agree with a point from an earlier Caliban post: People do seem to over-estimate (over-roleplay) the amount of fear and cowardice that a PC would feel. I don't advocate that style, but if I did, that would be another dispute.

But I do disagree with a later point: it is a widespread problem and is fashionable. I am amazed at the number of superb actors that I come across. Everybody seems able to do it.

"Be prepared." A rallying cry.

Unfortunately, most players have gotten out of the habit of caring whether their PCs live or die. Or are rich or poor.

I want people to get back to that place where they care. That is how to get back the excitement and sense of accomplishment that many players have lost.

Gamechick's "innkeeper" example illustrates the problem well. While probably one player will find the innkeeper discussion fascinating (most likely the one leading the discussion), the rest of the players will be left out. This is ok if it is a brief interlude, 5 or 10 minutes, with some relevant knowledge extracted in the end. That is not trivial. But a discussion about the innkeeper's wife and children and the weather which has no relevance and lasts for quite a long time, that's a problem.

While realistic, it is dull. Nonetheless, many players will indulge in this behavior, even taking turns to be the one PC participating in the conversation. The game will break down quickly as there is no legitimate excitement.

A counter-argument to my argument may be: But the PCs may not know what is important and what isn't until after they've had an entire conversation with the NPC innkeeper. He may reveal something in passing that turns out to have larger relevance later.

To this, I say that it is a matter of presentation. Creating long dull sessions to make exciting things seem more exciting is bad use of game time. I suspect that most people play for excitement, not to vicariously live trivialities of doing an imaginery person's shopping.

Wo ho ho! Seems like DWHoward really got to the White Wolfers out there!

While I agree with many that there is a limit as to how much game knowledge one character should be allowed to have. I completely agree with DWHoward's assessment of Gamerchick's latest post.

Whatever the game, there is a challenge and a thrill in discovering what your enemy is all about (what it can do, how it thinks, what are its weak points, what makes it tick). Hunter is all fine and dandy, but if your storyteller puts you up against stereotypical vampires and ghouls all the time, that's his or her problem (and yours).
We played Mage for three years and our chantrie were kind of hunters. We faced vampires, black spiral dancers, the technocracie and other supernatural foes. Never did we make the mistake of categorising vampires by their clan alone. Sure all sabat gangrells are similar, but unlike zombies, they have personal traits that makes them way too unpredictable to assume anything beyond their most basic capabilities and general outlook on unlife.

In D&D, you don't have to make trolls immuned to fire to surprise the heroes. Have them fight on a stormy night, in a swamp. Hell! have them play possum until they are back up to 75% their hit points.

In an old Planescape campaign, we had a player who kept justifying all his wrong decisions and rude attitude with "Hey I'm roleplaying my character." But it so happens that he keeps playing the same dumb ass characters! Needless to say I don't game with him anymore.

ROLE playing is an essential part of any game and augments the fun one gets out of it. But, it isn't the only thing. I don't find any difference with the stereotypical D&D munchkin dungeon crawler and the pedantic vampire RPG overactors. Both are too far off on their extreme of styles of play continuum (for my taste).

While I will never ever again play a game that is basically Diablo with dice and never again will I play a game that is nothing more than Charmed/Melrose Place/Angel the Roleplaying game.

Finaly, if your gaming group doesn't suit your tastes, leave! Find people who have found the same equilibrium as you have between drama and action.

By the way Gamerchick, has Joss Weddon given you his accord for "impersonating" Buffy Summers' in you Hunter game? ; )

Just kidding GC, es solo por seer tu sonreir amiga.

Cthulhu Matata!

I did not have time to respond to Gamerchick's last point. I can see how you (and people in general) are irritated by broad generalizations. But to say something of significant interest to a group of people I've got to generalize. If I show a specific case and don't have any general advice, I will be leaving the readers to guess how to translate those specifics into generalizations themselves. That isn't as helpful as generalizing.

Now, sure, there are probably a few GMs out there that do all kinds of things that I would call crazy or dull but have found a following. And, if you are a player that has found a GM and likes an eclectic and unusual style that isn't generally appreciated, that's great because I'm not speaking to you. Obviously, you don't need any advice or other opinions because your game is going great and you are enjoying a style that would probably destroy another campaign with average players.

For example, Yonjuuni's game. The players that Yonjuuni play with like to have PCs that spend time ordering pizza or going to a movie. Now I might find that boring and probably the average gamer would find that boring (which I feel is a pretty safe guess). It is a specific case with specific people and I guess that they like it. But, certainly, I'm not going to advocate that style in an article meant for the role-playing community at large. I would wreck more games than I help because I would be recommending something generally that only applies to a small section of the gaming public. In contrast, I believe that my opinion and advocation in my rant will help many games and wreck only a few.

Building off your last point, dwhoward, and incorporating it into some of my own, I think your advice is likely to help campaigns whose GMs want to make them more plot-based, and hurt those that want to make their campaigns more character-based. Maybe you're right and more campaigns need to become more plot-based (my own does, at times). Still, I can't say I plan to use it because I feel it's a little too drastic. I don't feel comfortable telling players that there is *any* situation in why they should stop playing their character and start playing themselves, be that combat or whatever. If they are stepping over the line and making the game unpleasant or unplayable and justifying it with acting, I will talk to them and tell them to back off (and I have). But hey, the unpredictability of PCs is part of what makes gaming so entertaining to me. If I knew exactly what they were going to do every time they got into combat, I don't think I'd want to keep GMing. And if they always worked like a well-oiled machine when they fought...hey, sometimes watching them screw up is what keeps the game entertaining. What matters is that they learn to work together so they win when it counts. A few failures along the way because of character conflicts just make the victory that much sweeter at the end. And if they can't work together...well, then I let them have it at the end and say "Better luck next time." Players have to learn somehow, right?

Not trying to bait you at all, Gamerchick. Just trying to point out to people such as Sam that not everyone who takes this stance on roleplaying is a White Wolfer.

Heck, the character in my game who has the least use in any combat situation is the character made by the guy who's been playing DnD for 14 years.

I guess the point that I disagree with is simple, dwhoward. Playing a character that does not know every fact that I do out of the Monster Manual is not 'hobbling' him. If I were to play a character that knew absolutely nothing about the world around him, and had never run across a monster- now that would be hobbling him.

I chose the middle ground. Most of my characters have a history that reflects some experience adventuring, and they have had to face encounters with various beasties in the past.

I am also confused by one of your points. You argue that a player should never be asked to not use OOC information. You then say that such a character is 'disruptive' if the other players are bothered by his superior knowledge and experience. Following your logic, how would an experienced player avoid dominating play? He is naturally going to know more about dealing with situations in the game.

How would you resolve the following example?

Player 1 has been gaming forever, and has been through every module and knows the rules and statistics of every creature, item and trap like the back of his hand. Players 2 and 3 are playing this game for the first time, but have played other games in the past.

As the GM I try to change things up. I throw some encounters at the group that are basic. Player 1 easily solves them, and the rest of the group feels overshadowed. Player 1 is not being obnoxious, nor is he trying to dominate things. But because he is following your advice and using all his OOC knowledge he cannot help but excel.

So in the next few encounters I use more challenging encounters and some unique creatures that I create. Player 1, once again, adapts much more quickly than the other players because he knows the rules and his own capabilities far better than the other players. He is more able to effectively structure his character than the rest of the players.

So, in the end, no matter what I throw at the group or what plot I divise Player 1 is likely to come up with most of the ideas and the solutions. The other players feel overshadowed, and start loosing interest.

How would you solve things? Obviously the only way for the other players to match Player 1 is through experience and play. Therefore, the best way that I have seen is to ask Player 1 to limit his use of OOC knowledge.

He doesn't have to play a moron, nor does he have to pretend to know nothing about a certain creature or artifact. Rather, he needs to purchase the skills neccesary to reflect his level of knowledge, and only display the knowledge reflected in his character background.

This balances him with the rest of the players. He is still very effective, and will still most likely lead the group. But he will not come up with ALL the solutions, nor will he dominate play quite so much.

I've been reading the responses going back and forth while debating on contributing to it. Well, obviously, I've decided.

I have to go with DHoward for the most part on this one. However, I do feel his rant generalized things a little too much. I agree that there has been and is a tendency for most players to concentrate on the "art" of roleplaying.

White Wolf games are generally the worst culprits in this. Not all, maybe not yours, but this is where I've seen it come up the most. In a LARP setting, taking care of all the little trivialities is fine. Hell, it should be encouraged. I remember having a blast sitting in a corner and reading the Wall Street Journal for a couple f hours as my Ventrue Primogen. I delighted in setting up dummy corporations to hide my true interests and holdings for other Vampires. None of that would entertain most other gamers. It entertained me though, so I always had a good time. (At least until that Ravnos pretender had me blood-hunted.. grumble, grumble.) Did all of this minutae contribute to the game? Yes. When the Nosferatu decided they needed a lot of silver, they knew that my Ventrue had the business connections to get the metal quietly and in bulk.

Now would all of this work contribute to a table-top game? Perhaps. The key here is that if I wanted to this with a table-top game I would do it when the group wasn't together gaming. I love to encourage my players to take the time and make detailed backgrounds. I like using them to help the game. If a player has a business or something similar that could impact the game, I want them to take care of it. I want them to worry about the market, etc.

What I don't EVER want to do is waste the GROUP'S time with this stuff. When you have a group of 3-8 people sitting around a table or in the living room ready to play a game, you want ALL of the players to be involved. When a player has their character interact with a barkeep (to use an example from an earlier post), I'll play it out. However, once the character has gleaned all of the information possible, OR I notice the attention of the other players wander, the interaction is over. I drop out of character and let the player know that he can spend the next hour of game time chatting with this person, but he'll only find out 'x'. I can then move on to the other characters and help to make sure they enjoy themselves.

As far as player's bringing out of game knowledge into the game, I take each instance seperately. When a group of new characters run into a creature for the first time, I describe it without the name. Using the troll example, if a player asks 'would I know to burn this sucker?' his background will decide the answer for me. Did the character grow up in an area that was near to possible troll habitats? If any of the characters fit that description, then I'll say yes, you've heard stories from the bards and elders about these fearsome beasties and how to kill them. When they encounter a creature that the characters would have had no chance of hearing stories about, I don't let the players act on any knowledge they might have out of game. That doesn't mean I let them get killed, but I do make them spend the round or two "experimenting" with what weapons work. I haven't had any complaints, and doubt I will. My players love the excitement of their characters encountering something new and learning how to fight it. As long as they know I won't kill the characters off randomly, they are fine with the separation of character and player knowledge.

That's enough from me for now. I think I'm going to get some work done.

Dhoward, I've told my players to look around a store next time they are in one, toy stories, general stories, et cetera. Why? To look around for ideas. See things, and imagine how they might be used in the game.

As for dungeons, I'm running Feng Shui, and the Netherworld is technically one BIG dungeon. I've disallowed Signature Weapon because, frankly, if you have a single weapon that will do +3 damage, always indestructiblerecoverable, and enough gun shticks to ensure you will never need to take longer to reload than you would to pick up another weapon . . . the whole Feng Shui concept idea of taking along a duffelbag of guns, or improvising other weapons from your current environment, is nullified.

And that's the kind of creative tactics which, somehow, I just cannot envision you enjoying. You can learn the stats of the monsters, but that matters little. Your tactics are supposed to vary, and if you spend more time describing your cool moves than everyone does rolling dice to figure out what happened because of it, then you're doing well. But you can't just use the same tactic in every environment, because you won't always be in the same environment, and the move will quickly get old and boring, racking up your penalties. Although you claim you do not favor the "rote memorization" practice, your posts seem to support this way of thinking. Be prepared - know exactly what to do in every situation. When every situation can be reduced to its composite numbers/dice, you can excel - and never need to exercise your brain again. Just invoke the same memories, over and over again.

-Coilean mac Caiside will stop here, to avoid giving away details on future articles

My rant does not take a position on the correct balance of Story versus Tactics. To put it in that context, I am exhorting people to stop justifying and stop distracting themselves by approaching tactical situations using only the skills meant for Story. (I think that that makes sense.)

Players with uneven abilities seems to be a sticking point.

Asking Player 1 to limit his use of OOC information is just the wrong way to go about it. Asking Player 1 to encourage and help others to participate is the right way to go about it. Or, the GM can do this himself. But, it does not follow that if a player chooses his PC to overlap OOC knowledge that he already has, that this will lead to him being less dominate in the game or that this will encourage shy or newbie players.

Extending my opinions to say that I advocate adding rules to games to split the game into two separate parts is a distortion. I separate the game into those facets to analyze and explain but I do not advocate formalizing rules around that separation. It seems that you are just reading a bit too much into my words, turning a simple explanation device into a full-blown world view.

I did not extend your words; I pointed out how they might be more effective if trying to accomplish something different. Whether or not you make it a Rule, you are still advocating just that - but in the tone of one who is gently leading misguided children back to the One True Way it was once done. You're right, too - it WAS once done that way. But, like all children, we grew up - and now roleplaying is more than just another word for a wargame.

The "you SEEM to be reading too much into what I said" piece appears little more than a "Please be ashamed of your own words and retract your statement by yourself."; I won't, and it will sit out there until you make a direct stab at refuting it.

-Coilean mac Caiside

We have had a complete elucidation of opinions here, I think. Thanks to all.

I'm willing to continue the conversation but I think that we've settled into two opposing camps with no common ground between. Obviously, I'm sticking by my rant. And, obviously, if you haven't been convinced by my explanations up to now, you probably won't be.

We can bandy about and try to get the last word or post the others into submission but no new arguments seem forthcoming on either side. We seem to have "agreed to disagree."

I disagree with this article nearly point for point. In any situation in which characters interact they are acting from their own perspective. Their own experiences must influence their own actions. We all know a little about sharks. If a shark was attacking me and my friends I would still have no idea how to drive it away or kill it.
Can anyone truly and fully supress their own drives and motivations when they do anything? The author would have us all supress our creativity to suit some need to powergame. Powergaming it a state of mind. It doesn't matter if you can kill a God while fending off a dragon or die from a the attack of a lone Kobolt.
Imagine for a moment you were in a situation any of your characters could find themselves in. Could you set aside fear of death or dismemberment? While characters are by nature above and beyond us, they are meant to be complex, thinking, feel beings with drives and motivations. Those motivations run the gammit from lust to disgust, rage to peace, treasure to the betterment of life.
Sometimes player try to excuse out-of-character behavior by suddenly alter their character. "Oh. My thief hides in the corner until the Troglodyte leaves." For a thief that may be normal. But is it normal for that thief?
Adventuring is NOT about cool stuff. It is about creating and fleshing out modern-day myths. Life is less grand than it used to be. People care less about people. Characters are heros, villians, or the innocent victims of the former. No it's not about winning either. It is about the Hero's Quest, the mental and physical journey a character takes to become a Hero. It is also about the sacrifices and pain he or she endures, the joy, love, and friends found along the way. It's about that moment of decision every gamer can sense coming, that adrenaline rush when the character rides the winds of destiny and discovers what they are made of. THAT is the game.

I have nothing to say that isn't put more eloquently by James P Carse in his book 'Infinite and Finite Games'.

Anyway, a quick summary is available at: http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Cultural/Philosophy/infinitegames.html

I believe the fundamental argument here is between people who percieve roleplaying as being an infinite or finite game.

One common counterargument against my rant seems to be: "As a GM, my players already know all the monsters and modules so I want them to pretend not to know."

Now, if you are the kind of GM who insists on using a module that some of the players already have memorized backwards and forwards, then I cannot see how the game will be enjoyable for those players, no matter how those players play. Sure, counterarguments suggest that they can coast along and get their enjoyment out of answering such questions as, "I know that room 3C has a minotaur. Would I be smart enough to figure it out?" Or, according to my rant, "There's a minotaur up ahead, let's go left up here to go around it." In either case, the module is going to be unsurprising, to say the least.

Another counterargument seems to be: "I don't have time to customize my dungeons and monsters."

That is a pity because making your players play through a played-out dungeon and pretend to be surprised is a poor substitute for a dungeon and monsters that are *actually* surprising both to the players and the PCs. If you don't have the time to provide that kind of excitement, you'll just have to make do with what time that you do have. Not everybody has the time to be a great GM. And, if you don't have the time, your players will just have to settle for what you do have time for. If your time is that limited, deep sacrifices (such as retreading known modules) must be made by everybody. We aren't really talking about my rant, anymore; we are just talking about how much muscle and bone can be cut from a game and still have it be worth running.

I should point out that I've had stock monsters blow away players (even hardcore RPGers), even though the players know all their weaknesses. Knowing all a monsters' weaknesses does not imply victory. Stock monsters can also be as varied as human beings; knowing how to beat up one particular human doesn't imply that beating up any human implies the same tactics.

Now, I never suggested and do not endorse the idea that players are required or expected to acquire modules and books that they think that the GM will use. It is a distortion to say that I suggest that players become accountants. Rigorously organizing IC and OOC knowledge sounds a lot like accounting to me, rather than just saying, use whatever knowledge you happen to have, regardless of the source.

There is a distinction between the player who malaciously tries to find out OOC knowledge and one who merely happens to know some. As a GM, if you feel that players are trying to peek around your screen, rifle through your backpack and anticipate and buy published adventures when you are going to use them, ask them not to do that. But, if you decide to run Barrier Peaks, knowing full well that one of your players GM'd the same adventure last year, you are not really running a game anymore. You are either running a farce ("Let's all pretend that this is new stuff") or a retread ("Let's just play through for a lark."). Now, you and your players may enjoy it. But it is more akin to just kicking the ball around on a lazy summer afternoon, not actually playing a game.

I'm not saying that players should spend their lives studying statistics. (If you look at my rant, it says nothing about this. I don't know where people get that.) I'm saying that players should spend more time being in the game and less time intellectualizing over IC and OOC knowledge.

Adam, I apologize. I phrased my point poorly. Please allow me to rephrase.

When people use the counterargument, "I don't have time to customize my dungeons and monsters", they are saying, "I don't want to or cannot put the time in to make my games the best that they can be." So, their games are not the best that they can be. Nobody blames a GM for not devoting his life to RPGs. But, I would not call somebody a great GM if he does make those compromises. I might call him a good GM that made the best compromises, that is, he got "the best bang for his buck". But a great GM is somebody who gets "the best bang" with no concern for the cost.

I, too, have a limited time to spend on RPGs. I would not call myself great for that reason. And I probably make compromises in different areas than you. But, let's not compromise anybody out there who is 100% devoted and pretend that we are just as good as him, when, in reality, we aren't willing to put all the time into it (to create customized dungeons and monsters) that could improve it.

I hope that you can understand my point and not be offended.

I'll reply to the rest of your post later.

"There you go again, trying to say that, just because you didn't express an opinion in the rant -proper-, you should not be held accountable for it. It doesn't work that way."

Just to clarify, I don't recall you saying that either. But your logic is still broken ;)

dwhoward, one thing about GMs taking the time to alter modules if they know there are those in the group who may have played them. That arguement falls down in one area: What if you don't know a player has read the module?

I mean, sure you can ask, sounds like a good idea to start with, but if players are meant to do everything in their way to be the BEST at gaming possible, and the BEST GM's simply are meant to alter the game to fit the players knowledge, then isn't the logical progression for the player to HIDE that knowledge? In other words, lie?

If the player pretends not to know the module, but then goes and 'cheats' and reads it anyway to get an edge, and you don't know they cheated, what happens next?

In my mind, there are two possibilities:

A) The player makes it obvious that he/she cheated, always having ungodly premonition about events to come. Seeing as this is pretty much a straightforward betrayal of faith between player and GM a conflict ensues. Or, perhaps if it were your hypothetical GREAT GM they'd merely shrug their shoulders and start re-writing the campaign from where the playes got up to, thus denying EVERY OTHER player the chance to play the module they had intended to.

B) The player, trying not to arose suspicion, ACTS like he doesn't know a thing, occassionally purposefully setting off traps and taking the wrong paths, but only the ones he knows shouldn't do him or the party much damage, and cunningly avoiding the worst problems or piping up with the correct solution at the last moment.

Now, isn't the second possibility a lot like what you decry as overly playing in character? After all, the player has the opportunity to walk through the module with total preparation, but instead 'fakes' a lack of knowledge to not let the GM in on his/her dirty little secret. The line begins to blur once again between gaming and roleplaying, and frankly as a GM I would prefer the player who had read the module to take the second option, because it would allow the other players to enjoy the module a bit more (and it would probably mean less fudging by the GM as a relatively safe route is guided by the player with the ooc knowledge).

Which. as a GM, would you prefer? To have to do a heck of a lot more work, while spoiling a possibly great module for the players who HADN'T peeked, or having players 'pretending' to not know everything, but seeming to have a sixth sense about truely dangerous situations, much like characters in REAL fictional stories?

And you can't cop out be saying you wouldn't expect a player to deceive the GM, because you have made it clear that in your mind it is a game, a competitive activity, and that the players seem to be 'up aganst' the GM. And seeing as there are no rules to the game that prevent lieing to the GM, with the criteria you are setting it's the for success it's the next step in the arms race of OOC knowledge versus GM compensation.

Needless to say, the solution isn't to not allow OOC knowledge, it is to run away.

Playing a game to win, such as Monopoly or D&D, is not immoral. A characterization that I am crushing people into the dirt and laughing it their misery is just grossly inaccurate. By that definition, anybody who ever won a game of Monopoly would be some immature, animalistic, incorrigible, insane scumbag.

A D&D game has the added advantage in that the players cooperate to overcome the challenge of the DM. Unlike other games which have direct competition, a GM provides the obstacles but is not the opponent. When the players win, the GM can be happy, too.

So, now, people have posted all sorts of doomsday scenarios. And, some of these probably happen every once in a while (or continuously to a tiny fraction of the gaming community).

Like I said before, my article was meant for the general gaming audience. If you fall into that 1% who has unusual players or unusual problems where my advice would hurt your game, then don't follow it. That doesn't mean that my rant is irrelevant to everyone; it merely means that it is irrelevant to you.

"Well, you may have your own definition of a great GM and I have mine. It doesn't matter since that definition isn't important to the argument. (It has caused more distraction than it is worth, frankly.)"

Aye, 'tis SO difficult to make a logic tree when others keep on wasting time uprooting fundamental flaws in said logic :)

"A GM can (should) balance play between "on adventure" and "in town" scenes. A great GM would mix up a bit, "in town" style roleplaying one week and "on adventure" gaming the next (in the same campaign). He would put in enough time on preparation and planning such that putting more time in would not improve the game; there is a point where a GM is as prepared as he'll ever be and he has no choice but to run the game."

You seem to have a very fixed idea of what a great GM would be, and conversely, what we need to DO to -be- great GM's. To paraphrase a point I made earlier, you are, by your own admittance, in the minority. Why haven't you applied your own advice to yourself, in acknowledging that your article won't be of use to everyone, in fact only to a small number of people?

"The point is that, if you don't have the time to do something, that doesn't imply that it is not worth doing. There is a difference between saying that customizing monsters doesn't make the game more exciting and that you don't have time to do it. Not having time to do something doesn't mean that it isn't worth doing."

Just an excuse, yes. Just like the one you're using - "I don't have the time to consider what my PLAYERS might like, on top of working at what we BOTH like."; what you seem to be upset about is people that have put in the time and effort to incorporate something new which their players enjoy even MORE than what they did before.

Call it an investment, but still, it seems to be quite compatible with your own theory - if you could have a wand of unlimited magic missiles, or a wand of unlimited fireball, which would you take? Sure, the magic missiles are effective [especially in a dungeon; and considering your emphasis on those, and the blast radius / recoil of a fireball, mayhaps this was not the best analogy to use], but a fireball is even MORE so. Doesn't the Law of Efficiency DEMAND that you take the wand of fireballs? Doesn't the desire to become the best GM you possibly might be, tempt you into spending your time as efficiently as possible?

And your analogy is imperfect. For one, your advice did not come WITH the module, nor predate it; it came afterward, and was not forced on every person. The normal GM has to work without it. Either we call the module broken, or we allow them the basic right to be able to run a module as is, without players abusing the campaign thereby.

Reading the module beforehand implies knowledge of it. The matter we are debating concerns the actual content, and whether or not to alter that on any basis. Reading is necessary for most modules; it is also, in most cases, before major alterations [people don't mess up the entire premise].

-Coilean mac Caiside

You know, I think the thing that got people irritated by the article wasn't the point in itself, which essentially boils down to "Don't let OOC/IC knowledge mixups slow down your game, and don't worry too much about inconsequential things". The problem I had with it was the title, and the sentence at the end: "It's not an acting gig; it's a game."

I view acting as one of the biggest parts of the game, myself, if not THE biggest part.

From what I've seen, Telfon Billy is an anachronism. In the past, that used to happen all the time but I haven't met anybody like that in the last 10 years. Not even once. Even newbies have all these role-playing ideals pounded into them from day one.

If you do happen to have one of these rare antique individuals, why change your game to accomodate only him? In my experience, any RPGer that can roleplay (even poorly) can understand what I'm talking about in my rant. They can understand the difference between rules lawyering and using a little metagame information that that they may have.

Maybe it is a subtle difference: I am not advocating that players become rules lawyers. They may use some metagame knowledge to make decisions and to play well but I'm not giving any guarantee that I am playing stock rules, stock monsters and no fudging.

We seem to be off-topic here, though. I intend to write another rant (or merely an article) encouraging GMs to liberate their game and stop putting all their energy into being cops. That is, showing a little trust and a little faith in players to take responsibility for keeping the game enjoyable and spending more time creativity. Rather than putting all this effort into codifying rules and patrolling their players for infractions.

But, as I see it, those are player issues, not playing issues. Don't fix out-of-game problems with in-game solutions. Especially for an individual who (apparently) cannot be reasoned with.

"We seem to be off-topic here, though."

SEEM being the operative word. You want to discuss something. It's only natural that you'd not want to waste any time discussing how you're wrong, when you could be putting forth more of them [fallible points].

"I intend to write another rant (or merely an article) encouraging GMs to liberate their game and stop putting all their energy into being cops."

I must wonder if you are the player or the GM in your game. Combined, those two articles would seem to be giving the greater inclination towards players to metagame [because, really, where DO you draw the line], and their GM's to ignore them, allowing anything that might come about to happen.

"That is, showing a little trust and a little faith in players to take responsibility for keeping the game enjoyable and spending more time creativity."

I for one, find that it is more enjoyable to play when none of the players around me are using out-of-game knowledge, and my creativity is stimulated when I do not have all the answers right off the bat.

"Rather than putting all this effort into codifying rules and patrolling their players for infractions."

Codifying them is precisely what you would have to do, in order to define the boundaries between what is encouraged by your rant, and what is rules-lawyering [something you claim not to endorse]. Who will make those decisions, without you to sit there and preside over their every game? Not the GM's, certainly - for remember, they are to sit back and be lax in their vigilance. Each player will make their own decision, based on their own opinions, about it. Then get as close to that line as possible [maybe even step a little over it].

That is where your method can apply only to the remotest of campaigns. For only in the very few will all the players have such a close idea of exactly where that subtle difference may lie, and enough self-control over themselves to not cross the line. For the majority of campaigns, and for the majority of players, it is far more efficient [there we go with that word again. I wonder what it could mean? Everyone around here seems to think it's so important] to abide by the most restrictive of all their definitions ["better safe than sorry"?], and keep from heading down that steep road of temptation.

-Coilean mac Caiside

I GM regularly and play when I can.

"From what I've seen, Telfon Billy is an anachronism. In the past, that used to happen all the time "

If Teflon was an anachronism KODT wouldn't sell. [neither would Hackmaster, come to that] It's comedy after all, and comedy doesn't usually age very well. There are exceptions to that rule, (I'm a big Looney Tunes fan myself), but you only have to look at a favorite sitcom from days gone by, (anyone else remember the Jeffersons?), to realize that those jokes just ain't getting any younger. The KODT crew are on record as saying that one of the most frequent comments from their readers is 'wow, I know a group / play in a group that's JUST like the Knights . . .' That suggests that the Teflon breed is alive & well. Heck, there's a group I know that's got a genuine Teflon clone as a player, (he prefers archer-template elves, for the firepower, and there were some nasty Mystic Archer rules published a while ago now), and used to have an even bigger Teflon, until the day came when the guy moved on to other gaming tables.

"Some of you clearly decided immediately that dwhoward is the spawn of Satan and must be utterly crushed"

Nonsense. I'm firmly of the opinion that dhoward is the spawn of Fuzzy & Fluffy Cuddlebunny and must be hugged. Frequently. Preferably by small and disgustingly cute five-year-olds.

:-)

c ya
Adam

What if that single individual IS the GameMaster?

So, you acknowledge that the existence of such people can actually create more of them, even after their decline?

I humbly submit that having an individual with enough power to PERMIT their excesses, would encourage players to develop them, moreso than a fellow player.

After re-reading the first paragraph (second if you count the intro on the main page) of dwhowards above rant, I am going to agree that theres a problem, but disagree on the solution:

"Read the rules, roam the boards, visit the games and it's all the same: Acting has replaced gaming in RPGs. "

I wouldn't say replaced, but YES, it certainly has taken a much larger portion of the gaming environment then previously. This in itself isn't necessarily a bad thing.

"Players are discouraged from studying the gamebooks; knowing about common monsters or enemies is disparaged under the derogatory term of "meta-gaming." Instead, characters should stare in wonder at the story and atmosphere that the Gamemaster creates, then blunder and stumble through the adventure. As long as they blunder and stumble using flowery language, Gamemasters reward them. I'm disgusted. I'm sick. How has it gotten this bad""

Now, when I re-read this, ignoring the rest of the article, I realised that it probably isn't the fact that people are gaming 'badly' that is the major problem. It's the fact that people are bad actors. Bare with me on this one.

I mean, EVERYONE should be able to game reasonably well, right? Chuck in a bit of OOC knowledge, a good deal of experience in the rule system, and basic knowledge of High School level statistics and you should be able to play the game well, get good mileage out of the rules, etc.

However, as the 'acting' aspect of roleplaying has become more popular, viewed at large by the 'people who should know' as the gem in the roleplaying crown, it has become the fashionable thing to do.
Even for those people who aren't actors, who have never trained or read up on acting, and are quite likely not to have the right sort of personality, let alone self confidence, to make great actors. After all, if they did they would probably have fallen into a Drama group rather than a roleplaying group right?

So what we are left with is an ideal "The great ROLEPLAYER", the old norm; "The great GAMING roleplayer" and the new norm; "The not so great ROLEPLAYING gamer (More often than not).".

And THAT'S where the problem lies.

I admit that great gaming in and of itself is an entertaining past time. Many people I know pick up books and deliberately try and munch them beyond recognition, just for the sake of seeing how far the system can be bent or broken. They are just exercising their right to find they bounds of the system, and I'd only class them as munchkins if they PLAYED to those bounds during games. This can be quite complex and to be the best at it requires a special sort of person.

However, good gaming is achievable by all but the least tactically and mathematically minded. And frankly, those sorts of people are usually too put off by the sight of tables, algebraic looking equations, and a dice with more than six sides to EVER even try a roleplaying game, so we you've probably never seen them at your gaming table.

Everyone else either comes in from a suitable background to pick it up quickly (Did well in school, discovered cardgaming or wargaming and moved on to roleplaying, discovered roleplaying as an extension of their interest in the history/mythology which the games draw from etc.) or are put into such an environment that they'll simply havt to learn how to be a good gamer VERY quickly. After all, if every group at some point has had a Teflon Billy of their own, undoubtably all the players would have seen an example of a great GAMER, someone capable of bending the game rules to their will like they were putty. The new gamer will at least hear the anecdotes and been given examples of how they used and abused the rules to all extremes.
From there they should be able to quickly pick up those same skills and create a character likely to survive more than one encounter. After all, having your character killed to a Kobold is a pretty quick lesson in what NOT to do, so it shouldn't take anybody long to figure out what went wrong.

Meanwhile, truely great ROLEplayers (i.e. actors) are a relatively rare thing. Sure, there might be those who CLAIM to be, and are into LARPing and stuff, but if they aren't in front of a camera every day, appear on stage for a living or are professional fraudsters chances are they aren't really that good at it, because good acting is HARD. It's much harder than gaming, requires MUCH more practice and is a lot more intuitive and dependant on the individuals personality.

So it's less common for people to know a great Roleplayer, let alone be one, than a great Gamer.

So, in the scenario dwhoward put forward, we have a bunch of good gamers sitting around, BADLY acting, at the cost of the good gaming they are capable of, and often complementing or rewarding each other for it.

He's right, that does suck.

And one solution is to go back to what they are good at, gaming.

Another solution, and the one I prefer, is for people to only reward GOOD acting, just as game mechanics reward GOOD gaming (through survival, and often, experience). For people to actually take a good look at what they are doing, and realise if they are really any good at acting out their characters, if they are at all convincing, if they are at all comfortable doing it or it's merely just a bad accent and feined ignorance they throw on when they are expected to roleplay.

And if they find that they are lacking, stop rewarding each other just for TRYING, only reward each other for SUCCESS.

Because as soon as you stop rewarding them for bad acting, one of two things will happen. Either they'll realise they need to get better at it, and strive to improve, or they'll go back to good gaming.

Either way, they'll be doing what they want to, rather than what the current wave of gaming has deemed fashionable.

Hiya

Just a quickie.

Caliban, I agree.

"So, I'm not convinced by the argument that "KODT is accurate because it sells well." (Not to mention that we haven't presented any evidence that KODT sells well.)"

Not so much that KODT is accurate because it sells well. KODT is probably accurate because it is satire, and satire has to be pretty accurate to remain funny. Irrelevant or innacurate satire is just about as funny as a corpse. As for the sales, given the market that they're in, (magazines in this field tend to have the lifespan of a snowball in hell), it's a pretty safe bet that their longevity, plus the fact that they've built a small publishing group on the back of it, indicates good sales.

Mind you, I think we've pretty much exhausted the argument. Good talking with you all!

c ya
Adam

"A condition might be added that certain PC personas would generally not be appropriate choices for players. Those personas would be those that tend to break down party unity or cause players to do things that are very ignorant or foolhardy.

I do not object to acting per se, as long as it doesn't sabotage the party. My rant is about the sabotage and using acting as a cover story, not so much the acting itself."

I would say that you don't have a problem with the roleplaying, per se, but the particular players who should not be allowed a chance to play themselves. But you seem to be saying that you only play a certain range of characters, and noone else should play the rest either. How realistic is roleplaying then? How restricted would you have us be in characters? By saying that "I do not object to acting per se, as long as it doesn't sabotage the party.", the natural extension of my hypothesis would be that someone doing so, can ONLY be doing so, BECAUSE they are such a type of player.

If you never fail, how precious is success? Your ideal of a party that always has exactly the same goals, placed above all others to the extent of cooperating to achieve that goal, seems rather selfish. However much you would LIKE things to all work out [you have enough trouble with accidents happening], players who work at cross-purposes will not necessarily "break down party unity"; for one thing, there might not have ever been any. Not everyone NEEDS to feel they belong to a group. Maybe "party unity" isn't that important to everyone, or maybe they're not so overly sensitive that they allow one little side-trip [I watched "The Musketeer" today. God damn that bastard D'artagnan for taking a little side-trip to escort the Queen, and not helping rescue his fellow Musketeers from the prison - and letting that "vow of silence" get in the way of letting the rest of the party know where he was going, and what he was up to - why, that just PROVES that this whole "roleplaying" thing cannot be afforded!] to become a full-blown "betrayal" in their minds; in fact, maybe they'll even accept it and wait, plotting, for their chance to enact a little comeuppance [ala The Dying Earth].

What kind of Flaws/Disadvantages do you take, Dhoward? What kind do you let your players take? Do you expect them to roleplay the flaws, or is that why some were disallowed? How well do you think you've handled your own Flaws? Would you condemn Feng Shui for encouraging the very type of behavior you seem to despise? In the very beginning of the rulebook, it offers you the chance to lower any stats of your character - but you don't get anything in return. It's just an option for making your character fit the concept you had better. Are you the kind of player that would froth at the mouth and spit at them in rage if they shaved off as much as a single skill point using this method? Don't forget - by reducing their own efficiency, behavior which can only be possibly excused under the argument "it gave me more points to buy what we'll really need for survival", they have weakened the entire party, thereby hurting their chances to win.

As a GM, I reward good roleplaying by enforcing a sort of "idealogical resonance" in the universe; if you do things which are ignorant/foolhardy in-character, you are still rewarded for taking risks, because that's the kind of behavior which the universe appreciates. If nothing else, you'll go out in a bang. But if you do it based on your own foolish notions as a player, it might turn out to be the right thing to do, and build strength with repetition. You must know a great deal about all those game systems to maintain such arrogance you will always know better than your character - which wouldn't be hard, if he was stupid. But if you never roleplay deeply enough to risk finding out, I guess you'll never know.

-Coilean mac Caiside

NPCs can provide the full range of personas needed to keep the world realistic. Inside the party, playability is more important than realism. Most RPGs are, by design, group games which assume a certain amount of cooperation amongst PCs; playing style or concerns about realism should not be so extreme as to turn the group into a liability, rather than a benefit, to each PC. Yet, many players use role-playing as an excuse to do exactly that.

If party unity is not important or there is no party unity, the game should be a one-on-one game or should be 100% "in town". If it starts as a group game that has an "on adventure" part, it will break apart into a bunch of one-on-ones (and an overworked GM). Or, the adventure will fizzle as some players connive, meander or indulge personal whims while other players attempt and probably fail to herd the party towards the adventure.

Those that connive, meander or indulge personal whims (which may use the role-playing excuse) are putting their own enjoyment before the rest of the group. They want to take a portion of the GM's time and the other players' time to cater directly to their PC. A one-on-one game is appropriate for these PCs, not a group game. A PC whose persona is a distraction or a liability to a party should not be introduced out of consideration of the other players and the expressed goal of the game (to work as a group to complete an adventure).

Oh, just as an example of hte above, think of the inept/bad character as Paul Reiser's character in Aliens, either that or the Commander who didn't have very much experience.

I mean, both were great characters, and vital to the story. Now, it might be better if they are played by NPCS, who often the PC's will have no qualms in turning on, but they can be equally well played by a good player.
Of course, that player should EXPECT to die, or to be found out, because ultimately we are talking about heroic stories here, and that's what happens in these sorts of stories.

But more power to them if they manage NOT to get found out, if they manage TO turn on the group. Of course, then they should probably hand over their character to the GM to become the bad guy for the next campaign and so on. Because ultimately, somewhere along the line, traitors/self-serving cowards ALWAYS get what's coming to them in a good tale. It's the pay off audiences expect, and your players will expect it too.

I have not played the Dying Earth so I cannot comment on it.

I find Caliban's playing of an evil PC where the "extent of [his] evil was just the one big ulterior motive" very palatable. He's putting in his all during months of play, maybe causing a bit of trouble "in town" but playing his best "on adventure", and the campaign either ends or transforms with a final confrontation between the PCs. Such a style is what my original rant advocated (and a quite skillful implementation of it to boot).

Coileen, your comments regarding my point the party will take care of the inept player are neither constructive, nor accurate.

I was saying that if someone was of such a bad ability, or disposition, that they would put the QUEST at risk constantly, then the party would chuck them, because it doesn't serve them to have them around.

This might just mean that they shun them completely, which should give the player the message very quickly. THey might actually threaten the character with violence: 'Get out, and if we ever see you again we'll take you out'. etc.

Now, I did mention there MIGHT be a very good reason to keep them around.

But I know if I constantly let down a playing group with my blatant ineptitude they'd do more than complain after the game, they'd take action to either help, or expel my character DURING the game.

Remember, we are not talking about situations where a player is simply not doing the best their stats suggest, not powergaming, but players who are actively putting the players at risk by either overly feigned ignorance or active sabotage.

People are ALWAYS evaluating the people they travel with. You are ALWAYS evaluating those around you, making judgement on them by their action, it's a facet of human behaviour. And if things get to the point where everyone else sees you as a liability, a threat just as great as the monsters you are supposed to be helping them defeat or traps you are supposed to be helping them avoid, then they'll do something about it.

They have a choice of what they do. If you ARE playing a totally naive character, and the characters you are with are compassionate, then they'll probably try and help you out. Such is the case for Pippin in the Lord of the Rings, and in the end he turns out to be an important hero despite his earlier tom foolery. This is good character development, and part of a good story.

Meanwhile, back to my Alien comparisons, Hicks was quite willing to kill the Company man, and if his hand hadn't been stayed by Ripley, quite probably would have been. As it turned out he died shortly after anyway, so the party was rid of him regardless.

The over riding point is that if you aren't helping the party, then there should, and WILL be some consequences. If there WEREN'T then you are just as guilty of roleplaying badly as the person who is overly playing up their weaknesses, if not more so, because you are ignoring group interaction on the premise of "Well, that's just how they are, nothing we can do about it.". Of course there are things you can do about it! What you choose to do depends on your situation and group make up.

For example, in Vampire, where you are almost at risk from those you are with anyway, if you constantly stuffed up you'd need some serious protection from the rest of the party.

If you were playing a gang of criminals, they'd probably just slit your throat and strip your body. Unless of course you were the hopeless second cousin of the gang boss, in which case they might have to think about it a bit more.

At any rate the party make up should have a lot more controlling factors then mere circumstance, and what each player simply 'wants' to be, which seems to be what you are suggesting.

While the GM can fudge things to try and make disparate characters have to work together at the beginning, if they don't adjust to work together, if they don't bond in some way, then sure as hell there is going to be conflict and, unless it's important to the story, the GM should just let it play out.

Caliban:
"At any rate the party make up should have a lot more controlling factors then mere circumstance, and what each player simply 'wants' to be, which seems to be what you are suggesting."

When I referred to the philosophy I was seeing here, it was that expressed by Dhoward. After reframing that view, I returned to my own with "But", and so on.

Dhoward:
"Suffice it to say, being a player and continuously and covertly undermining the rest of the PCs is great fun for the player playing the PC doing the betraying, not the betrayed. Even expertly played, it is basically a sucker punch, a cheap shot."

No, I don't believe it is. Again, and put in ALL-CAPS this time for your [very remotely] possible comprehension: THE PLAYERS CAN HAVE FUN ROLEPLAYING. Whether it's a thief playing little pranks [like loose buckles, etcetera] on the party because they wouldn't let him loot some corpses/rooms on the way out, or the paladin refusing to heal some people because they executed some prisoners without need, it is hardly a sucker punch or cheap shot. No, I have to think about how you've been treating the various topics here, and when you say "I started writing my opinions on them but they are largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand so I did not post them.", I cannot help but see that as "Well, this rant will actually HURT my points, and anything that doesn't directly contribute to proving my points isn't relevant.".

"Seeing disappointment on the horizon, some players may dissociate with their PCs, not wanting to invest effort in a game that looks like a lot of trouble for only a little bit of fun. Others may take to being inept as well, seeing more fun in being a force of frustration rather than the less fun job of construction; it is easier to destroy than to create."

Again, with the "The only way to have fun is through victory.", disappointment only comes from not getting what you EXPECTED to. And maybe, just maybe, the gamers were in there for the FUN, of which "victory" would have been an acceptable means of stimulating [or not; the METHOD by which it was attained might not make them happy]. How much trouble it is, will depend entirely on how much they even SEE it as trouble. There is no need for the extreme ends of the spectrum to be the only choices, as you postulate; people could simply change their motivations, and "go with the flow" a bit; frankly, the construction/create job that you are suggesting seems to be more destructive than anything else PC's might do on their own; forcing the game world to adapt to a certain reality, aka "the victory". Maybe the PC's could learn to relax a little; no need to be such grim soldiers all the time, when they can HAVE FUN! [What, did you think that was reserved solely for the players? At the expense of the characters?]

Destroy, or create? Bah, humbug! That sounds remarkably like the "If you're not with us, you're against us." motto of an evil warlord. You're just mixed up; it is always more fun to create than destroy, so long as it's YOUR CHOICE to do so.

-Coilean mac Caiside

"If a paladin refuses to heal another PC at an inn and the other PC must find a local healer, that is not sabotage or betrayal. If a paladin refuses to heal another PC during combat in order to cause the death of that PC, that would be both sabotage and betrayal (not to mention that it would also be an evil act)."

Post after post, Dhoward, I see the same thing - refusal to acknowledge a middle ground.

The group has finished their first encounter with the band of orcs they are here to hunt down - a minor skirmish, but before chasing down those who ran away [and might be heading straight for reinforcements], they need to re-optimize themselves. "Too bad our clerics died in the fight, they still had a few healing spells left; but it's okay, the paladin hasn't Laid On Hands today." But the paladin refuses to do so; still a sudden and unexpected [unannounced beforehand] act, but not one which is evil [ooh, what is he doing, making it more difficult for the party to kill MORE orcs?], but simply forcing the group to take a few days of rest and recuperation, healing up normally, instead of chasing right after them.

-Coilean mac Caiside

I disagree with your article.
"players should role-play "in town" but play to win when "on adventure" and during combat."
That sounds very boring and monotonous. Obviously an experienced player will have more OOC knowledge than a newbie... but should they play with that knowledge? I don't think so. Using OOC knowledge in-game is just going to succeed in making the game less and less fun each time you play; the DM will have to keep creating brand new stuff beforehand just to keep things interesting (Ironically, I see a DM who introduces brand new creatures and stuff to actually be very unimaginative. A truely creative DM can use old stuff in ways that make it seem new... likewise, a truely creative player should be able to do similar.) But if you act your character all the time, even the oldest challenge will be something new with every new character you do it with.
Just because something might be tactically inefficient doesn't mean it's less fun. More often than not, getting your character screwed over is MORE fun.
It's not about winning, it's about adventuring. And AMEN to that, because while you can't always win, anything can become an adventure. Even having your character go pee in the bushes can turn into a crazy adventure. And if your whole team dies because of poor judgement, they're death can be used as fuel for the next campaign.

"It's not about winning or losing, it's how you play the game."
...and your logic is flawed. The point of a "Role-playing game" is to pretend your a fantasy character, it... doesn't... make... sense... to throw 'role-playing' aside (in a, repeat, "role-playing game") in order to win.
Your talkin' squaresville, maaan.

I posted the above after reading the story, but now that I've read and skimmed some of these comments I'm seeing that I may need to elaborate.

Just like when arguing with a rules lawyer, it's pretty much impossible to win a debate with dwhoward on this topic because every time you nail him on an inconsistancy or a other problem with his rant he backpeddles or otherwise weasles out of his previous statements. He seems too used to being able to say "Oh wait, I didn't mean to say THAT!" whenever his character springs a trap or gets within the fireball's damage radius. Just smooth talk the DM and you too can "win", right?

My advice: Re-write the frigging article and this time say what you mean and mean what you say. Otherwise quit wasting everyone's time with these sensationalist troll-like antics.

A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away.. you said: "I understand how people can say, "It's a ROLEPLAYING game." And, I say in response, "It's a roleplaying GAME." A game implies competition and scoring. It implies striving to be the best by using all your own skills and wits in the competition. Be it D&D or golf."

As long as something is amusing and challenging it is a 'game'. You don't need to keep score, or even have a direct opponent. Solitaire is a game; scoring and who my opponent is are irrelevant to me when I'm playing. Acting in character is also a game... because it offers a challenge. The type of game we are discussing is a 'role-playing game'; the term 'role-playing' describes what kind of 'game' it is.
It is therefor logical and correct to assume that, in a game which is described by the term 'role-playing', role-playing is indeed the main point and 'score' is really just the topper... no matter which word is emphasized.

So, I'll take some time out to address me.

In spite of the accusations of several posters, I have argued in good faith. I do my best to address those arguments that I can understand and have an element of logic in them. I admit, I do collect several posts, glean what I consider the best arguments among them and address those. I also admit that I ignore posts that seem irrational, overly emotional or simply reiterate some argument that has been thoroughly vetted and argued in previous posts.

Why am I not convinced by your arguments? Why do I seem to have a response to every argument? Well, I've seen my method work. Further, I believe that it can help a lot of games. Since I believe in this idea and have seen it work, I merely take what I have seen and find the reason why a particular argument or disaster did not occur in my game. Then, I guess whether that reason is universal or not. So far, with all the arguments, I have not seen those horrible things happen, I've determined the reason and then determined that my experience was not unique and seemed universally applicable. Then, I posted all that here in the simplest form that I could.

I do not hate any of you. Obviously I frustrate some of you. Some of you may think that, if I disagree with you, I am attacking you personally and you must exact revenge. I explained why the rant was written in its style and the definition of a rant. I am not your personal Antichrist. I'm not trying to "beat" you or hurt you but I do believe in my opinion. I approach your posts honestly; I do not try to intentionally distort or misinterpret your writing. If you present a conflicting opinion, I do not hate you for disagreeing with me, I acknowledge good points (even if they are not airtight and I disagree with them) and am perfectly content to say, "We agree to disagree."

I am arguing in good faith with no personal vendettas attached.

"I acknowledge good points (even if they are not airtight and I disagree with them)"

Yet above, you announce that you:

"ignore posts that seem irrational, overly emotional or simply reiterate some argument that has been thoroughly vetted and argued in previous posts."

How do we tell the difference? When are you simply quieting down to acknowledge a point, and when are you ignoring them because YOU -FEEL- that they are irrational/emotional/repetitive? Since you have continued to use logic I refuted in earlier posts, I must conclude that you were ignoring them. Yet, I gave evidence - proof to support my position. By failing to address those, are you not, by the logic you have described just above, NOT done what is required to refute them?

As for the entire paragraph full of anti-christ crap, I will point out that the SOLE poster to bring this up was "Philos", who seemed to be portraying the whole situation with a reversal of roles; though probably unintentionally. Since he gave no example of what he thought the rant meant or was about, well, his post is obviously a "flat unsupported statement".

Here is his post, made on June 17, 11:14 PM:

"Wow. I am astounded at how poorly understood and badly misrepresented dwhoward's rant has been and continues to be. Some of you clearly decided immediately that dwhoward is the spawn of Satan and must be utterly crushed, and are not capable of considering anything he's said in a reasonable manner. Fortunately, he's having none of that."

Hmm, comparing to the posts made before that, I can't see what he's talking about. So, I would classify his post as "irrational AND overly emotional". Nice of you to spend an entire paragraph "ignoring" that sole poster, though.

You're using logic that varies according to the situation, and trying to base future points off of bases we refuted a few pages up [but then again, if you can't see them, we won't either, right? I wonder if you've completely forgotten, or just presume we will instead], fortunately, we're having none of that.

-Coilean mac Caiside

"If you are a reader who feels that I am arguing in bad faith, I suggest that you discontinue posting. To continue to respond to a writer who posts in bad faith, merely gives that writer legitimacy and attention that he does not deserve."

Yet to not refute fallible points, merely implies agreement with their writer. I do not see how I am granting you legitimacy; by allowing you to illustrate your own failings, I am enhancing the ability of readers to see for themself what is going on.

"As an author, I feel a personal obligation to address legitimate reader questions and discussions; as the person responding, I get to choose which are legitimate. But, as a reader, you should feel no such obligation."

Translation: as the person debating your side, you have the right to choose which debates to ignore, and other readers, well they should just assume that your negligence in responding to them proves their illegitimacy.

"As an example of my good faith, I have acknowledged some good points that Caliban has made as good points, even though I did not find them compelling enough to change my opinion."

My, what a -marvellous- example. Agree with them where you can afford to do so without compromising your position, it makes you look good ;)

Is the best way to avoid acknowledging points that might prove compelling enough to change your opinion, ignoring those points in the first place?

"I have no intention of responding to personal attacks that spew bile and hatred, no matter how legitimate their author may think they are."

It's too bad that we have nothing other than your word there have BEEN any such attacks. Perhaps if you quoted the "bile and hatred" which has [allegedly] been going on, or indicate the time/date of posts which did so? But wait, maybe then people would actually be able to -judge for themselves- instead of take your word for it.

"I will respond to those posts that *I* determine have logic and evidence."

That's not saying much, when your past posts have shown that you're not very good at doing so.

-Coilean mac Caiside, who has made many points, the better of which were ignored

I've read most of this debate (and it has turned into quite a debate) and I'll readily admit that I haven't poured over every word.

That said, I'll simply put this in -
agree or not, I can say that I've left more games because they reduced to simple puzzle and kill dice rolling instead of sculpting any kind of story.

It's not wrong to dissagree. I'm just saying, Roleplaying isn't empirically one way or the other. Opinion is the final line. You want rules? By Wizards of the Coast. You want story? Buy White Wolf. You wanna play one way or the other in a system that doesn't support it? Get good at MS Works and paint cherself a character sheet you want to use.

Game or Play, RPG's are for the imagination. I'd like to see more publishers produce games that support both the actors and the gamers to varied degrees.

Posts, not articles. But another point arises; why would you rather that the new readers decide whether or not they want to risk giving me their E-mail address, if they have one, to accept information which may have been edited, when with little trouble or time they can simply read everything for themselves, on the original forums? I don't see an "Edit Post" button - I think they are relatively tamper-proof.

In the meantime, I shall consider what you have done nothing more than a cheap cop-out - an "I can't refute anything you say, and that includes what you did after I tried to intimidate you into withdrawing or insult you into making a flaming fool of yourself, so I'll just declare you beneath me".

-Coilean mac Caiside

Postscript: Yes, I think I -will- create such a compilation.

Everybody would agree, I think, that better RPGs would be a good thing.

"In both these cases, the arguments only convince people who already agree with the given point of view. Nobody would be dissuaded from trying my ideas by these arguments. If people choose to believe these arguments, they would not have tried my ideas, anyway."

*raises an eyebrow* . . . oh?

You don't see a compelling argument in what Mallrat22 is saying, henceforth anyone who agrees with him has never done it your way?

This statement doesn't make me wish I had never wasted the time doing things 'your way', or ashamed of the time I did spend already . . . it only makes me regret having to share this practice with such an individual as yourself. Your prejudice (given above) and intolerance (common sense, as Mallrat22 said, with you certainly lacking it nor minding in the least to 'prove' your points) are what gives us a bad name.

The argument goes: It is a *role-playing* game. Game is ambiguous. Role-playing is not. Therefore, role-playing must be the single most important, everpresent and enjoyable activity in the game.

And, yes, that is an argument. Some readers (only a very few, I suspect) will think, "That proves it. Dictionaries and classifications prove what is fun and what is not fun for me." And, I'm willing to concede those readers to you. Any reader who accepts this argument should ignore my rant.

But, if you don't need a dictionary or a classification determine what is fun, consider my rant. I'm not trying to prove my point; I just want people to understand and consider my point of view. There is no irrefutable proof on either side. Some may agree; some disagree; some not care.

Hey, you are not going to convince me that I'm wrong. At best, you can shout me down or out-post me. But I've seen my rant make my own game better. I believe that it can help many games.

These issues are not such that lend themselves to mathematical-style proofs. They are a matter of opinion. I just happen to have a different opinion than you. That does not make me your enemy; it does not make me a scummy person; I just disagree.

"The argument goes: It is a *role-playing* game. Game is ambiguous. Role-playing is not. Therefore, role-playing must be the single most important, everpresent and enjoyable activity in the game."

From what I can tell, the argument is that, with roleplaying being unambiguous, you can't decide to define it like 'game' is. And as a 'role-playing game', it isn't two activities tied up in one bundle! It's a *combination* of them!

Your overall insistence that ALL the emphasis be placed on the LATTER half of that phrase, is mainly what has caused such a debate. NEITHER are to be emphasized. You can define game however you want to, but just don't let it take over the ROLE-PLAYING GAME.

If all I wanted to do was win, I'd buy a product which only charged me for effort in creating challenges towards that goal and a balanced environment for them. If all I wanted was a GAME, I wouldn't be playing a ROLE-PLAYING GAME.

Maybe you've misunderstood my emphasis. I have always advocated role-playing "in town" and playing tactically "on adventure". So, I have always advocated a combination. Do you merely object to a single-minded focus to win or do you say that winning should never be part of enjoying RPGs? I object to a single-minded focus on winning but I advocate a combination.

I just found this thing a few days ago, so I guess I just felt compelled to 'kick the corpse a few times'. :P

Basically my arguement is just that, based on the technical definition of a "role-playing game", the rant attacks everything that a 'role-playing game' is supposed to be.
Also, I have reason to think that it is less efficient to change the world to give the players new challenges, rather than just change the characters (by that I refer to new character personalities).

Aside from that I say, "To each their own." I have no problem with how other people choose to play their games. I just felt the rant wasn't very good at saying what it was trying to say.

"When you tell somebody that what he thinks of as high art is not valuable to you, he's got to hate you."

In short, you're expecting complaints from people who are upset for the reasons you just mentioned, ergo, anyone who DOES object to you MUST be doing so for those reasons.

You need a logic check, Dhoward.

-Coilean mac Caiside

How comforting it must feel to have someone else out there backing up your inner confidence; that security of knowing anyone who disagrees with you, must also be acting from hatred towards you.

Strike "logic", you need a -reality- check, pal. People just aren't like that [barring the minority you ever hear from], and I am certainly not. Literally. You CAN'T get me mad, or to hate you. Both are emotions. So is pity, which in itself IS a pity, because you [if anyone] deserve it. But even if I could, I sincerely doubt you would have managed to raise enough anything with your rant, to elicit response from me. You just don't put a point together well enough. The entire theme of your rant depends upon GM's running railroading campaigns where the plots are forced forward because the characters aren't motivated enough to do so on their own. What about the players out there who DO actively further their own destinies, and by taking the SITUATION the Gamemaster has surrounded them with, they CREATE a "plot"? Your rant may certainly be of use to those players who are so weak-willed and lacking of all volition, that they need a kick in the pants to get moving, but shifting awareness away from character and towards the accomplishment of mission would scarcely be of any good unless they could FIND their motivation to do anything, which, you barely implied in the original rant itself as 'use what the player knows'. And yet, your rant would still be quite misdirected, because it presumes the PLAYERS are befuddled, not their characters. Whatever your intent was with that rant, Dhoward, it cannot have succeeded [unless that intent was to greatly raise an eyebrow on the collective faces of all those players out there who HAVE taken control, or to instigate a lot of comments on the boards].

But wait, you're not reading my posts anymore. I began to, horror of horrors, prove certain points to the extent where you could no longer conveniently ignore them, and it became necessary to declare ALL of me... unable to contribute any more useful commentary. In short, ignore ME, and if the problem doesn't go away, well, at least your own arguments no longer stand a chance of becoming less cogent.

-Coilean mac Caiside

This is a very interesting discussion, and a common one, and if you people could refrain from attacking DMhoward personally for his well-reasoned posts, then we could get back to exploring the nuances of our positions. Engage the discussion on the page. Shrill speculations about the character of the poster is fruitless, and make you look foolish.

Based on my 20 years of experience with playing and GMing about 10 RPGs, I’ve seen the full range of characterizations and playing styles we’ve talked about on this board. From what I’ve seen, good and bad, I support DMhoward’s point of view.

Even a basic improv theater student will tell you that role-playing improv does not take place in a vacuum, unless it is a one-man show. Any ensemble improv performance must take into account the context of the story and the performance of the other players. It must acknowledge the reason for the performance. Is this comedy? Drama? Tragedy? His performance must somehow add to and build up the work of the performance as a whole. If the improvist goes in a radically different direction, it selfishly steals the spotlight, he forces the other players to work twice as hard to make the story coherent again.

It is so with role-playing games. When a player (and I mean player, not character) undluly steals the spotlight away from the story that the other players have agreed to play, then most of the time, it is a selfish act. I am flexible on this, to a degree.

For instance, I’ve seen characters that are “headstrong” that look before they leap. This has worked to a certain extent because it prevented people from analysis-paralysis, killing the pace of the activity. But they tempered their zeal to behave in only one way.

At the ugly end of that stick are the blood and thunder role-players, crashing through the door every time, rendering the contributions of the thief moot, denying the players the choice of how they will respond to the scenario. This is rude, selfish, and in any other game, would be like taking another player’s turn. While it is fun for the offending player, the other players pay for it. And, like the harried improvists, the other players must figure out why on earth they would ride around with such a liability. In such a case, the so-called “role-player” does his best to undermine the fundamental premise of a group of people riding out to work together to overcome a challenge. He makes it the other player’s problem to figure out a story reason why they would stay together. Though he claims to be an artistic purist, this kind of role-player succeeds in bleeding away the fragile plausibility, the consensuality of the activity. This kind of player doesn’t care for consensus.

Which brings me to the next point, closely related: Some people mistake role-playing for being an asshole. These are often people who seem to uphold the stereotype of the socially awkward geek gamer.

For a game to be fun, players must recognize that this is a real-life social situation, friends sitting at a table eating Cheezies and choosing to spend time with each other. For most people, it is escapist fare, and in the big picture, the lasting impression should be a good time. For that, there needs to be an element of cooperation and agreement with the DM and the other players about the kind of game that will be played. When one player, under the auspice of an evil character, decides to pick on another character, the result has always been a train wreck, in my experience.

-it hijacks the game, making it into a character fight, which is boring, rather than whatever the original story was (which would allow the players to interact with a scenario on their terms, rather than forcing them to deal with a character)
-it splits the party. How do you proceed when the fight is over?
-it makes players upset at being bullied
-it removes the ability of the DM to moderate or facilitate a fair conflict or a reasonable challenge
-it damages the cooperative aspect of the game

It's like having a guest pick fights at the dinner table. Everyone gets this "deer-caught-in-headlights" look on their face as they make jokes and try to defuse the personal hurt or anger that comes from someone hijacking an evening in such a way.

DMs must take care with this as well. *Players* should be expected to use their heads to avoid situations that seem dangerous or stupid. The inexperienced thief shouldn’t have to role-play getting his head chopped off by a guillotine blade if he spots the slot in the wall. The players should reasonably expect to avoid lifelike and sinister statues in a dungeon, even if they haven’t yet come to life in the past. Deny players these choices, however “true to role” they might be, and you remove the game from the activity. At that point, you are reciting a novel, forcing the players to be passive witnesses to the DMs construct. It may or may not be entertaining, but it isn’t interactive and it certainly has no game element. 8 hours may be a reasonable time to sit through a game, but it’s a long time to endure a performance.

There is a middle road in this debate, and that's what I like to take. Before the "role-player" camp dismisses me as unimaginative, do check out my contribution to the "Art, Sport, or Religion?" thread, where I outline more effective ways to include role-playing in these games.

Thanks Gamerchick. From what I read, your analysis (and others) is a binary reductionist take on what dmhoward said. Plainly, dmhoward said, "I object to a single-minded focus on winning but I advocate a combination." I do not see anyone advocating an absolutist viewpoint, except those saying that one cannot win an RPG, and perhaps, if anyone is advocating that a DM has no place in setting limits on the kind of character or behavior that will be acceptable in the game.

It might help if we define “winning.” Is it possible to win and RPG? Yes and no.

The activity of an RPG is just that – a role-playing/game. We have aspects of role-assumption, and aspects of game. Remove the game, and we are left with theater sports (though poorly done and often cliche). Remove the elements of story, and we are left with a chess game. So I can assume that if we are playing an RPG, we have elements of game and story. If we lack either aspect, then it doesn’t matter what handbook you refer to, you are not playing a role-playing game.

So, what is a game? Here are 3 reasonable and relevant interpretations from Websters:

1. A calculated strategy or approach; a scheme
2. An active interest or pursuit, especially one involving competitive engagement or adherence to rules:
3. A competitive activity or sport in which participants contend with each other according to a set of rules

In an RPG, or even in a story for that matter, there are a set of goals that must be achieved for the hero to be successful. Kirk must defeat Kahn. The One Ring must be thrown into the Crack of Doom. The Death Star must be destroyed. If these things occur, then it is reasonable to see that the hero has “won,” even if the story continues into a sequel. So, from a story standpoint, a hero can win, or fail.

By the same token, most major plotpoints and puzzles within an individual RPG involve a tactical approach, which will either succeed or fail. Do you reduce the Big Bad to 0 hitpoints? If you do, you win, at least for THIS day.

There are other more nuanced positions in which an individual character can sacrifice himself, while helping the party achieve victory. In one 2nd edition scenario, a DM had hopelessly and ridiculously overmatched our party, and due to a blunder in his description, did not allow us to properly prepare a spell sequence to protect ourselves. When we were out of magic and near death with no hope of withdrawal or quarter, I used a particular spell sequence (minor globe of invulnerability, phase door, and fireball), to incinerate the Big Bad along with myself. My character was dead, but as a player, I was pleased that the party lived, and moreover, that we had achieved an impossible task. The DM, realizing his mistake partway through the encounter, was trying to figure out a way to save us without being obvious. When the party lived AND we took out the bad guy, it was the sweetest victory I’ve ever had in the game, even though my character died. We surprised even the DM.

Can people win in pure role-playing? Well, it isn’t really a game, and as such, it is its own reward. But it is hard to apply terms such as “victory” to whether someone is able to express a rounded character to the rest of the knights of the dinner table. Even in much more free-form games, such as Vamp LARP, it is challenging to distinguish victory, because there are rarely any major plot arcs. In activities such as LARP, it is entirely appropriate and expected for the characters to generate their own stories as the result of their decisions or actions. Very little external plot is used.

This kind of play isn’t as successful in D&D though. You can play this way with D&D characters. Hell, you can even LARP them, but in doing so, you are not playing D&D, no matter how fun it is. You are using your D&D materials to do another kind of activity. D&D is characterized by a relatively unified party interacting with a plot and environment that is facilitated by the DM. When one player decides to grab the Mike and generate divergent plots that force the other players into his new game, then that player invalidates the DM's contribution. In all my years of playing, I've never seen that kind of player introduce a plot point that was MORE interesting than the one the ref already had going.

It's just basic courtesy. In a group creative venture, there will be a number of good ideas all around, but they won't all be compatible. To play anything, players and DMs must temper their zeal to stretch that group tether too far.

Moreover, even if one player feels it would take the evening to Shakespearean heights if his fighter "doesn't believe in magic," it doesn't mean that his wonderful character trait is more fun for everyone than a fighter who doesn't suffer this craziness. I'm not clear on what I mean there. Let me put it this way. If you are at a comedy club and you feel compelled to steal the mic from the entertainer, you'd better come up with something that is good for everyone. It's best to be mindful of the context. Use roleplaying to add flavour to the game, but don't use it to introduce drastic changes in plot, or to become another challenge that the players must solve. That role belongs to the DM, and there it should stay.

Nephandus,
"Use roleplaying to add flavour to the game, but don't use it to introduce drastic changes in plot, or to become another challenge that the players must solve. That role belongs to the DM, and there it should stay."

I have to disagree. Allowing each individual player's plot to impact the main one, if the best reward for them trying hard. Some of the major plot twists, in fact, were brought about by one particular thief [whose name I shall not mention here, lest her spirit be summoned again], who, with a spirit of mischief [and greed], freed a time-travelling witch... and an ancient goddess of Pain. I think it was the party as a whole who freed the lich [and I don't imagine the cleric's player was very happy about it, when he tried to turn and had the holy symbol melt in his hands]. All of this was perfectly realistic; the GM knew in advance exactly what would be there, and from where they were, once the thief decided to swim the bay [and succeeded], she was permitted to interact with the locations/events there. It wasn't INTENDED per se, by the GM; who just had to know what was surrounding the players, and fill in the blanks [of perception] when they arrived.

As a GM, I don't mind players adding to the plot. In fact, I encourage it. There's a wonderful mix of intentions out there, and mine isn't to let the players walk through a gilded stage of my own design. If their plots can't impact the main storyline, I may as well run them with another character/game, because it's not going to matter there.

"I'll underline that point. In 3e, the game mechanics and probability curves are carefully designed so that a DM can gear a story's challenge level to a particular party's ability to meet that level."

I'd like to underline "3e", but this post mechanic won't accept HTML. All the examples I have seen, are of D&D. Perhaps this rant might benefit from an added "This is addressed to D&D."? I will allow as how these statements might be true in D&D; I've certainly seen nothing good about it. But D&D is not the sole game in existence, nor does everyone out there exclusively play D&D.

-Coilean mac Caiside

On player-generated plots in role-playing activities - I don't know if I'd class them as games. LARP, for instance fits here.

In most RPGs, there are moments where the odd player will exceed the internal assumption of their role, and elevate their participation to the level of performance, but these are somewhat rare.

I recall wonderful evenings of this in Mage, where rather than having players tell others who they were, we all gathered comfortably in a room without a table, and incorporated theater-games. As GM, familiar with their characters, I told them that over the course of the week, they had engaged in many conversations, and that we were about to give each other the highlights of those conversations. To do this, I facilitated an improv session where players acted out brief scenes from their character's childhoods (sometimes I participated in them).

We started with the "I am" game, where players adopted personas of people significant to their characters, and acted brief snapshots. I played too, showing them people important to the story. "I am Porthos, thundering down the hall in a pink bathrobe, my hair electric, my eyes arcing!"

I directed them with premise that they were waiting in a room talking (just as the players were), and then gave them relevant (to the plot) topics to talk about, as their characters. These conversations would never develop on their own, but with just enough direction, we hit all the important exposition points for each character, while each player introduced further elements of their characters. Some adopted accents. They moved differently. We experienced something very different from the normal game experience of "...so you're all in a tavern..."

These sessions were the only times I've played a tabletop where the backstories of the characters actually reached the level of an improv performance.

The thing is, non of what we did had anything to do with the rules of the game system - Mage. We did it to enhance our experience. It was part of the evening, but at that moment, we were doing more story than game. At points, participants were moved genuinely.

In either case, those performances informed our characters as we eventually got down to lighter fare, which was playing the RPG, engaging the prepared plot and game.

Then there is LARP. A lot of people love it. Not my cup of tea, but I can't begrudge the people who dig it. In this activity, there is virtually no exterior plot at all. Just a bunch of characters plotting against each other and "being." In this kind of activity, I think it would be quite challenging to successfully foist an exterior plot onto the action.

When we engage in these activities, we are perhaps all these things at one time or another. We come to them for different reasons, and do different things, even within the context of a single session. I'd say the activity is a constant negotiation between craft, art, performance, and game.

I don't think that it is necessary to have two games, one for role-players and one for tacticians. Most players enjoy variety and alternating between role-playing and tactical challenges would seem to be a good way to give it to them.

Later posts touch (but don't go into great detail) on what to do about people who use role-playing to take the spotlight unfairly. Splitting the game into "in-town" and "on adventure" segments is my solution that I believe fits the majority of games but others might have alternatives that they believe fit the majority of games. Some people may believe that most gamers could be made aware of how to role-play on adventure without taking the spotlight and diverting the game unproductively. "Benign metagaming" sounds like another alternative or blend of previous alternatives.

There is a little bit more, too, namely the definition of stealing the spotlight and unproductive role-playing. I would say that spending time to role-play a PC who does not know a troll by a player who has memorized all the statistics of a troll is unproductive. Once or twice in the course of a campaign, role-playing "not knowing" may be of interest. But I discourage gamers from doing that routinely or making the objective of the game. These players are probably not being malacious. (I'd say that) they are making a mistake and, in spite of best intentions, drawing focus away from the GM's challenge. I'd encourage them to find challenge or to push for greater challenge by taking some advantage of that metagame information rather than by seeking challenge through role-playing in that way.

Introducing a bestiary, a gift or common knowledge to explain away metagame knowledge are excellent ways to rationalize away the problem. With the PCs and the players aligned and having the same knowledge, the issue is moot and made harmless. We might quibble about whether the in-game part is required or is just a nicety but it is a minor point, not even worth the trouble of determining.

Deciding on a strategy to tackle a foe (rocks or fire vs the troll), is hardly number crunching. I don't think anyone advocates such a stance.

There is certainly merit to introducing exceptions to surprise expert players, but this must be balanced against the effort involved. Surely a DM's time may be better allocated in developing a great story that will sustain interest for a long time, rather than re-writing the Monster Manual.

What of that virtue of gaming in your own Tao - namely Stability in a setting?

http://chrysanthemumroad.tripod.com/writing/Writings.htm

Most experienced players appreciate putting their knowledge to tactical use, and are intensely frustrated if they are prevented from doing so by their DM. It's a slippery slope too. I was a game in which the ref would not allow us to keep our distance from an obvious encounter site (a strange and malevolent statue) because our characters had not encountered such a thing previously. It was not fun, and while it may have preserved the purity of his narrative, he soon found that the group resented having their choices removed.

To continue your example of a troll encounter, I'd sooner make the obvious tactic more difficult to employ, rather than re-inventing the "constants" of the world.

Perhaps this one troll is immune to fire due to a special circumstance (ie some kind of magic or slime coating, or a water filled home). On the other hand, making all trolls immune to fire simply because you know players will use flame against them isn't really removing metagaming from the scenario. After all, the ref's switcheroo was designed to specifically foil the anticipated player tactic. It has little to do with the narrative. The surprise works only once, and after that, are your new trolls better to play with than the old ones (and are they tested)?

It is an absolute pleasure to bring a group of new players through an adventure, watching them figure out strategies for the critters when they aren't familiar with the source books. It may be possible to act that sense of discovery, but it isn't really that fun, and when I've seen players do it, it wasn't really especially convincing either.

Coilean, if you think about my post before trying to attack it, you'd find that we essentially agree.

How is the "water-filled home" and slimy environment I proposed even the slightest bit different from your wet "swamp?" in deterring the usual "fire attack"?

We make the same recommendation - rather than rewriting the Monster Manual, be creative in setting up a challenging encounter.

You seem so eager to cast me as a number-cruncher gamer that you are overlooking blatant similarities in our approach. Off the top of my head, I've laid out several ways of handling it, and you've just done shorthand on them in an apparently strenuous effort to disagree.

"Since they know what the capabilities of the monster are, what [exactly] do they need YOU [the ref] for?"

This like saying that once one has learned the permitted movements of each chess piece, he has outlived his use for an opponent.

Coilean, I recognize that agreements in a thread can be boring, but so are semantics. It is courteous to assume the most reasonable interpretation of your partner’s point. Straw man arguments are not charitable.

Reading between posts, I’m still not sure what your stance is regarding role-playing ignorance. Looking back, I made the first comment in support of one of dmhoward’s positions, which was that expecting experienced PCs to role-play ignorance about a familiar tactical approach isn’t very fun.

My contribution was that DMs have options to explain metagame knowledge from within the narrative, more closely aligning the PC’s knowledge with that of the players. This skirts the drudgery of role-playing ignorance, while still maintaining the integrity of the narrative. The integrity of the story is as important to me as the game.

You criticized that point with some kind of argument against number-crunching and forcing players into pre-fab strategies.

“You can accomplish any task by a single means, but why bother restricting yourself to only that one method later on? It negates creativity.”

This appears to be a straw man, or perhaps an honest misinterpretation of our point. To my knowledge, no one has offered a point that says, “because a player is able use her metagame knowledge of tactical weaknesses, she should always use the same strategies.” But I’ll grant you, if anyone did make such an asinine argument, I would be pleased with your response to it. My point was not on what players should or must do, but rather, on how DMs should prepare to challenge experienced players.

In the troll examples, my magic and slime are applications, no different than armor on a PC. They are simply more tools in the DM’s kit, along with the environments that I also offered in the troll example. The DM can use them to change things without re-writing the Monster Manual (ie. changing fire-resistance to cold resistance), just to preserve the danger of novelty in an experienced player without meta-gaming much. I've never been keen on the idea of most intelligent monsters storing magic items when they could be using it. Surely, this point is somewhat banal though.

Your next paragraph, which is (once again) about settling your monsters in environments where they can protect their weaknesses, is an excellent point! I've made the same point twice so far, and counting. But it is worth repeating several times to our readers, so keep on, keepin’ on.

Changing the PCs (as you offer), is also another good idea, though I’d be very careful with it. Sometimes this can be an excellent way to throw them a twist – such as in the Tomb of Horrors, which separates players from their gear if they make a certain move. I’ve seen it done well, and I’ve seen it backfire, such as when our clumsy DM tried “depriving our party of spells” through a ham-fisted way of removing them from our spellcaster. Was it challenging? Sure was. Was it fun for the player who was the mage, whose unique contribution was removed as everyone else played on? Not one bit, and it lasted for 2 sessions. The same DM tried to whimsically blind me (as a thief) at the end of an adventure, without any special roll or spell. He thought it would be an interesting thing to play. Nobody else did, and we resented the DM for messing with our characters in such a way. (This was the same tyrannical DM who refused to let us avoid the obvious statue encounter – he was even worse as a player, but that’s another story). So, changing the PCs themselves is a risky venture, but it can be pulled off – though it is often done more successfully through some kind of game mechanic. Players like to keep their characters intact, and often resent DMs affecting them, except through game choices.

---------

Regarding the Chess simile. Your original statement was as follows:

"Since they know what the capabilities of the monster are, what [exactly] do they need YOU [the ref] for?"

To lay it out clear as crystal: in chess, there are relatively few moves that can be done. With very few exceptions, each kind of piece moves in one way. The board is restricted to a small grid. Yet there are nearly infinite permutations.

In the case of our loathesome trolls, they have more options available to them than the typical chess piece. They have fire resistance, reach, strength, and regeneration. The DM controls the environment in which they appear, as well as whatever strategies (ie pummelling with rocks from height) they employ, and even what goals they have. There are far more options available to the typical troll than there are for the typical bishop in a game of chess.

With that in mind, I think it is not accurate to say, as you did:

"Since they [the players] know what the capabilities of the monster are, what (exactly) do they need YOU [the GM] for?"

Even if a player is aware of the unique tactical potential of a troll, or of a bishop, it does not exactly reduce the ensuing tactical scenario to a singular routine strategy. If there are too many choices to predict what the bishop will do with its tiny range, there are certainly a lot more variables in the troll encounter.

Hence, “This like saying that once one has learned the permitted movements of each chess piece, he has outlived his use for an opponent” comes in response to your previous statement, which seems to say that once the players know the specifics of monster stats, there is no longer any game. Am I unfairly misinterpreting your position on the topic? Or do you have one?

I've not read all the post, as they are tiring. For a Character to use what that character doesn’t have at any point in the game, to me is the only way to cheat in a role-playing game. Would you allow a character to use a weapon they do not posse - NO. Why then would you let them use other thing they do not posse. For a character to use intelligence, strength, or anything else they do not posse is cheating. The character is in the game not the player. If you let the player use their intelligence instead of the characters, are you also going to restrict that character to the player’s strength as well. I have had characters die because they used information that was not available to them. If you put all your points in strength and few in intelligence because you get better hits in battle, but then don’t play your characters intelligence you need to get out of role playing because you are a cheat and need to play something you can handle - like shoots and ladders.

View, if any deviance between the player's "performance" and its reflective atttribute is cheating, how would you play a character that is more intelligent or charismatic than you, the player?

If your character has a high intelligence score, and you, as the player, cannot figure out the villian's plan, does that make you a cheater? A poor role-player? What if you have a high charisma, but you can't convince the other players to follow your plan?

Would you prefer a game mechanic to solve the problem for you? Say, roll under your intelligence score to see if you can figure out what the villain's plan is. If you win, then the DM could just tell you enough about the plan - the exact amount of knowledge that would be appropriate for the stat.

That way, you could just skip the contributions of those pesky players entirely, ensuring that each PC's performance reflects its respective statistic. If the player with average intelligence comes up with a brilliant plan that earns the applause of the other players, the DM would then have recourse to roll the dice to see if the player's character could actually come up with an idea like that. If not, then the DM could veto him. Great huh?
It would certainly prevent any cheating, if that is our goal.

Personally though, I think dmhoward and I are prepared to compromise on rigid notions of metagaming, if only to avoid the drudgery that would come from such a meticulous attention to detail. It is partly a GAME after all, and if games are not fun, then why bother?

Well said that second time, View.

And, if you want to see more posts that are relevant to the rant, you should try clicking on the Total Posts link, which will show you the ones made directly after it was published. Scroll down through those until the signal-to-noise ratio drops below your tolerance level.

View, it's a role-playing game - not just role-playing. If we were just role-playing, then where's my Oscar for wandering into the deadly statue trap, when I knew full well it would attack me?

You glossed over my corollory of your argument, which occurs when your character is more intelligent than you are. The character is a genius. Chances are the player is average. If the stats are sacrosanct descriptors of how a character should act, then what do you do?

If you play a genius, should your DM simply look at your character's intelligence and connect all the dots for you as soon as your character has been exposed to the requisite clues? This would reflect your character's intelligence.

But I can't imagine that you'd be pleased if the DM narrated the denoument to you rather than allowing you to figure it out for yourself. Genius intelligence in your PC or not, the DM would have deprived you of your chance to resolve the story, to win the challenge. There would be no game.

Why not just read a book, in that case?

The stats mainly facilitate game choices. We can bend a little on role-playing attributes because it is impossible to play them accurately. The activity is not a simulation of reality, nor is it Shakespeare (though it might have elements of both). It compromises on these elements to make it more engaging, more playable, more enjoyable. you can try to make it less so, but to what end?

Neph: To my knowledge, no one has offered a point that says, “because a player is able use her metagame knowledge of tactical weaknesses, she should always use the same strategies.”"

Coil: It seems to follow naturally; once you know The Working Tactic, you will use it, because it is proven to work. This happens in real life, too. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. My objection is to people who HAVEN'T fixed it themselves, who don't KNOW the solution, and haven't even HAD this problem - displaying knowledge of it.

No, expertise at it.

P: Which is precisely why dmhoward and I posited that DMs and players should work together to account for special insights within the plot of the story. The characters read a bestiary, for an obvious example. Don't give the players the Monster Manual; just know in game, that if characters know something - that's where it came from.

Either that, or rig the encounter so that their special insight, The Way That Works, is rendered moot - such as the troll in a watery swamp. You seemed to beating that drum a moment ago, where is it now?

In this way, you don't have to deal with the drudgery of pretending you don't know skeletons take half damage from swords, for the fiftieth time you start a character. Is this what passes for role-playing?

Playing dumb is not fun - at least to me.
It is a poor excuse for role-playing, offering little in the way of character insight.

By emphasizing role-playing to such a large extent and de-emphasizing the use of the player's own knowledge and skills, it makes playing and GMing much more similar. If playing is like GMing, except that a player "GMs" only one character while the GM GMs an entire world, many games offer less variety than they once did. Playing is relegated a simpler and narrower form of GMing, rather than a separate skill.

A pity, really. As I see it, being a great player and being a great GM involve totally different skills, goals and measures of success. Why make them so similar?

Here's my explanation for that phenomenon. These days, most players have been GMs at one time or another. When they return to being players, they use the same GMing skills, rather than see player skills as completely distinct from GMing skills. GMs, especially great ones, may accidentally lead by example; players may "GM" their characters, not realizing that the GM is not meant to be a role model for how to play.

dwhoward - well said. Too many times former GMs don't want to let go. They try to play a character and run the game.

Nephandus – Most that play RPG are of above average IQ. That’s why they play, it challenges them. But part of the challenge is to figure out how a lower intelligence character would over come an obstacle. What I am saying is, if a super smart character or any character that does something that would be dumb for that character, the GM has on occasion looked at them and asked them to tell them again what they are doing. If they insist on doing dumb stuff (below the level of their character) so be it, super smart people do stupid things – look at Clinton. Low intelligent people occasionally come up with brilliant ideas. However, if they always come up with a brilliant idea, than they’re not low intelligent are they. That would be like the mage with average or below average strength always fighting hand to hand and allowed to win. How do you make a character play one stat but not another. The challenge of this game to me was how to play the character with what they have.

I appreciate the feedback all of you have provided me. It has caused me to think about my game and how I play and why. Thanks

It seemed like a good idea at the time!

It just didn't turn out well.

K.I.S.S.; Keep It Simple, Stupid. And indeed, they do.

This seems like an interesting debate here, I've read most of the last 50 posts or so. I think that dwhoward has finally started to get to the heart of the issue back on July 4th when he started writing about GM's.

I feel that how much "role playing" and how much "tatical" in a game really depends on the GM of the group. It is the GM who creates the setting, the scenario, the challanges and all else. So ultimately it falls on the already burdened GM's shoulders to set the balance for the game. When creating the adventure the GM should account for the characters, but just as importantly if not more so, he should account for the players running those characters. He should know roughly how experienced and knowledgable his players are, and prepare accordingly. It is the GM who should place where good role-playing should happen and where the tactics should happen.

However players being players will want to go wandering off exploring beyond what the GM has prepared. This is the true test of GMing, because now he has to create the challanges off the cuff and fudge his way through without letting the players know he wasn't prepared for this. Of course the GM could restrict the players movements, but I find that bad GMing. They are PLAYER characters after all, let the players decide how to run them. Even if this means all your hard prep work goes up in smoke.

This also means that your players will have there characters act on knowledge that the characters really shouldn't have, your classic Troll debate. If as a GM you know your players have this type of knowledge, just be prepared for it.

However the bottom line of this is that everyone participating is there for some fun. The GM is central for this to be accomplished. If the GM is good, no matter what the players style of playing is, a good time will be had by all.

No, I strongly believe that players should take responsibility for their own enjoyment of the game. Regardless of style, players are a part of the game and, thus, have the ability to sabotage it.

As I see it, GMs are responsible for providing challenges to both the players *and* their PCs. Players are responsible for accepting those challenges, organizing themselves and doing their best to overcome them.

In my "philosophy", you might say that there is a somewhat more responsibility: rather than constructing games only to challenge the PCs, the GM must also know and challenge the players, as well. But, this is not a shift in responsibility: it is just an addition.

No, I strongly believe that players should take responsibility for their own enjoyment of the game. Regardless of style, players are a part of the game and, thus, have the ability to sabotage it.

Yet above, you define not only what players 'do' enjoy, but what they 'should' enjoy, to the exclusion of all else if necessary.

Perhaps that is overstating your case, but I do seem to imagine you saying something to the effect of 'priority'.

Players can sabotage the game; perhaps, for this reason, they should take responsibility for the GM's enjoyment of the game as well.

What you are saying still comes across as 'Be responsible! Admit it, you love to win! Make things fun for yourself and don't worry about 'cheating', because I've told you it isn't! Every other form of enjoyment can go to hell so long as you just *win*!'.

Agreed dmhoward - on players being responsible for their contribution toward their own entertainment. Strangely, newbies are the most eager to jump in, while experienced players are often the most demanding of the GM.

There is usually one player in every group who chooses to negotiate exceptions to rules rather than working from within the game structure to solve the game problem. It becomes a showstopping contest of oration between DM and player, rather than a game in which players use their characters to solve problems. DMs who practice appeasement in this regard end up reinforcing arguments more than the flow of good play. The most leeway you give becomes the least that the player asks for next time.

The worst group I ever GM'd (Star Wars, D&D, Mage) was so bent on survival (losing track of "fun") that it took massive pains just to get them to agree to accept a challenge. If possible, they would hire NPCs to go into the dungeon before them. In Mage, rather than fighting the forces that threatened them and the world, they decided that they would flee to another country. I thought it was just me, until I played with them as a player Vampire, and saw them do it all over again. Their relationship with that DM was so antagonistic, that they forced the GM to write down his tactics and seal them in an envelope before a big fight would begin, to ensure that everything was "fair". Where's the trust?

Another player, the infamous tyrant DM story-purist from many of my examples, "imagined" that he commanded an army, and that this army, instead of the party, would take on a giant fortress. When I gave him a thousand reasons why his better "imagined" story was not the story we were going to play, he accused me of railroading the plot, and not facilitating is "Joan of Arc" character, which needed an army to command. Oh, the irony.

I eventually retired from DMing with that group because I realized that this one player (and former tyrant DM) would never cede control over any aspect of the story. None of these demanding people seemed to be having any fun - much less, whenever they succeeded in weasling their way out of the story. They were the most intense, the most strident, but quite often the least informed as to the spirit of the rules and why they are there.

Why do these people play RPG's? I ask this, not necessarily as a criticism: some people may indeed play for reasons other than for fun. But what are they? What do they get out of the experience if they don't even want to have their character accept the story challenge? Granted, the story-purist player had a very specific idea of the way he wanted the story to play out, but his vision was incompatible with that of the other players, the DM, and the nature of the game structure. Faced with that, I don't "get" why he wouldn't just write a book. Why try to maneuver other participants into the role of a passive witness in a game that requires participation?

Another acquaintence told me how he dealt with a similar situation. When the players refused to accept the challenge, his innkeeper offered them jobs - washing dishes, tending bar, tossing chamberpots and cleaning stables etc. They readily accepted this new and intriguing change, waiting for something to happen. It didn't. He ended the story in the tavern for those characters.

Some players come to sit at the table, but they have no intention of actually playing anything.

I'm not sure what you were trying to say, but you did have a missive that should be corrected:

“Granted, the story-purist player had a very specific idea of the way he wanted the story to play out, but his vision was incompatible with that of the other players, the DM, and the nature of the game structure."

Actually, Coilean, I said that and the other thing you quoted - not DMhoward.

"That's what I've been inquiring about regarding Dhoward [and what he has repeatedly abstained from answering], is he not saying that, conversely, since the visions of everyone else was incompatible with his, that his was incompatible with theirs?"

You quote me, so I suppose you meant to address that point to me. I'll repeat:

It was a player in the group whose vision was incompatible with ...
1. the DM (me),
2. with the other players,
3. and with the nature of the game (proposing a straight narrative telling of an army battle, rather than players making choices and fighting skirmishes).

It was NOT a case of all players ganging up on the DM (me). In fact, the other players were unanimously against him, even though it disadvantaged them tactically.

Role-playing is not "a structure" at all - it is an activity, like singing. Like singing, it can have structure applied to it, through various theater games you might find in an acting class.

In the case above, this player envisioned role-playing as every player intuitively knowing how he wanted the scenario to turn out, and doing precisely that. In other words, the players were there to facilitate HIS vision. The players were outraged when he refused to let the players avoid an obviously dangerous scenario "because their characters had never experienced it." Everyone bailed on his game after that night.

I suppose one could argue that the players had no right to feel so angry - indeed, their characters hadn't been exposed to the particular danger before. It's just somewhat futile to argue about what people *should* think is fun.

Players are responsible for accepting (at least one of) the GM's challenges.

Avoiding a direct confrontation (e.g. running away and returning later) or opting for an indirect confrontation (e.g. raising an army and returning as its leader) would be "accepting the challenge". However, refusing to accept the challenge is along the lines of Nephandus' GM friend who had to resort to having an innkeeper hire the party to empty chamberpots, clean stables and so on. If players perversely insist on avoiding interesting plots and singlemindedly pursue dull ones, they can hardly blame the GM. The player has responsibility here.

A GM's challenge does not necessarily imply preparation. A GM might generate an impromptu challenge (plot direction with associated new objectives) as a result of PC actions. The PCs can have a choice of objectives and some of those objectives might be have their origin in PC histories or personalities. The key is the players have a responsibility to latch onto something which is both interesting and can sustain some sort of plot (or progression).

I do not specify how to react to players who refuse to accept any challenge. Role-playing it until the game dies, like Nephandus' GM friend did, is one option. Forcing the player's into the closest (planned or unplanned) plot is another one (though I don't care for it). Simply cutting the session short and "uninviting" the disruptive players next time is a third. Or, even cancelling the whole campaign.

(I can see where we got off track. Somebody made the assumption that "a player's responsibility to accept a GM's challenge" translates to "a player who refuses to accept a GM's well-planned challenge must be forced by the GM to accept it". The second statement simply is not the same or implied by the first.)

"Avoiding a direct confrontation (e.g. running away and returning later) or opting for an indirect confrontation (e.g. raising an army and returning as its leader) would be "accepting the challenge"."

In the case of the player who wished his "Joan of Arc" character to raise an army to fight the Against the Giants campaign, I took great pains to accomodate him.

I accounted for the army and the raising of it in the story, and used it as role-playing and a story backdrop, but the game (D&D) simply is not equipped to handle tactics on that scale, and it isn't fun for the players to sit and watch while an NPC army does the work for them. To your point, the player must give me SOMETHING to work with that I can use.

I constantly gave his army reasonable story objectives that required its presence elsewhere (I let the players decide what tactics their peasant army would use on the map, what places it would hold). I gave it a vital place in the story, but made it of little use in the skirmishes which the party itself would fight. The final battle, I proposed, would have the players fighting on a cloud fortress that hovered over and threatened their army in the final land battle. Their success in the fortress against the leaders would determine the success of the land battle story.

I thought it was a suitably epic compromise between story and game, having the effect of player skirmishes instantly rewarded and reflected in the greater story.

Unfortunately, the player simply would not work with me on it. He recognized, rightfully, that I was manipulating the story to prevent him from leading the army (and thereby invalidating any other player contributions, or skirmish game element). He did not value how the army background was expanding the story and the world, and he didn't care that it prevented others from participating.

Sorry, Nephandus, I was using "raising an army" as an example of accepting a challenge and competing in the game through an indirect way, not responding to your post about a player who coincidentally did the same thing. That is, my only point was "accepting the GM's challenge" does not require direct PC confrontation as another post seemed to imply.

In your specific case, certainly, a player can accept a challenge and use a solution that puts the GM in a difficult situation. It isn't clear that anybody is really to blame in your situation (though some may be, I simply don't know). Some situations can develop where the game is unworkable through no fault of any of the participants.

So, you were left to

To finish my thought...

So, you were left to try to find a way to continue the game that both involved the PCs but somehow made sense in light of all that had happened before and the current situation. Not easy, maybe impossible, without cooperation of the particular player. It seems to come back to that "spirit of cooperation" that everybody, both GM and players, must promote. Accepting the GM's challenges, etc. were an attempt to be more specific about what that spirit consists of.

To sum the example, I see this person as the worst extreme of a role-playing purist - just as bad if not worse than the biggest munchkins I've ever met. At least with a munchkin you can both reference the same text. With a RP purist, only the imagination is important. God help you if imaginations disagree on something.

His obsessive devotion to his "role-playing" vision prompted him to ignore the most basic rules at whim, enforcing them when it suited only him, to constantly override even basic player decisions, to play dumb when he knew the answer (or to force us to play dumb). As a DM he slapped gag orders on players who came up with good ideas, and as a player he tried to bully the DM into changing the environment rather than working from within the environment to solve the problem. His devotion to this “role-playing art” justified everything. But whatever he did, he made no allowances for elements of game, or even for the participation of others, including his DM.

He was so uncompromising in his devotion to role-playing “truthfully” that he sacrificed every other aspect of the game to it, including the participation of others.

Like most tyrant DMs, he forgot about fun. He forgot about the real-life people sitting at his table. He forgot that it was a social occasion, not a ritual, and that his guests were there for recreation and entertainment. He forgot to acknowledge that the people playing those characters were his friends. He forgot basic courtesy. Most importantly, he dissappointed all of his dear friends, and lost a few.

But at least he stayed in character until the game fell to pieces around him because nobody could play with him anymore.

Was it worth it?

"Do you start to feel panic when your players spend a few sessions in between scenarios without getting involved with another adventure? Does it give you the feeling that your game is losing structure?"

Our players, including the problem one, didn't like extended sessions where their characters wandered around shopping, farming, collecting taxes, mapping routes etc. I didn’t either. To engage the players, I think the story should be more interesting than having the same players just sitting and talking. So if my players insisted on these sessions, would I feel panic? No, just very bored.

We dealt with a lot of "regular world living" stuff between games on email. I was careful to make “regular life” pervasive in the campaign -just not in our "live" sessions, which picked up as close to the action as possible. It gave our characters continuity and a sense of a life apart from adventuring, and allowed them time to create brief and interesting slices of life for other players to read.

Coilean, I can see from your posts that you seem to want to dismiss me as some kind of numbercrunching wargamer. So far, I’ve said that I integrate the following activities:

• several types of theater improvisational games,
• back stories
• planned role-playing encounters with NPCs that would still further the plot,
• further 'tween game opportunities to role-play
• in-story reasons for reasonable metagame knowledge

If these things do not convince you that I have a keen regard for role-playing in my game, then nothing will. I’d warrant that the first item alone holds more role-playing acting performance and play value than most other so-called RP purists have attempted. As such, I suspect that the most strident detractors are not so much “pro-roleplaying” as they are “anti-game.”

Wargamers we are not, though that does not mean we should be somehow shamed if the tactical aspects of the game happen to be tight, paced quickly, and actually work. Nor should we feel less artistic if we choose not to pretend our characters don’t know when they are walking into obviously dangerous scenarios, when we have flexed creatively in more fruitful areas. And I will not apologize if I knit the tactical, story, and role-playing aspects of the activity together so that they support and affect each other.

We aren't there for acting class.
We aren' there to play chess.
We aren't there to write novels.

We are there for all those things.

Umm, guys? (And others too, n/o GC.)

I think we're all saying the same thing.

There's just some debate over how far a given example can have bearing on a wider scale, and until we get a collection of campaigns with different factors all listed, I don't think we can have that. Let the examples stand for their own cases, and the exceptions be noted so that others can take note if, possibly, these observations wouldn't be valid for their own games.

The general relevance of the given example, is to warn groups against perceiving role-playing as a virtue that should never be compromised for the greater benefit of the group or occasion.

Role-playing, by itself is not sacrosanct in an RPG game. It exists within a context – a narrative setting or framework, a social occasion, a group of other participants whose imaginations may not produce compatible stories, and a set of rules that is hopefully designed to ensure everyone has a reasonable opportunity to participate.

In the example from my own campaign, we had an intelligent, artistic, passionate 30-something year old role-player who believed his sole responsibility was to be true to his character (which, for him, included the context around that character). Everything else was everybody else’s problem to solve for him. Everything else had to constantly be sacrificed to ensure the purity of his character’s role as he envisioned it.

If I am reading correctly, some people here seem to think he was right.

Following this line of thought, he failed to make room the participation of others and he failed to acknowledge that there was an environment and setting of the narrative. For the other participants, this selfishness and sabotage was no longer about his character – it became personal. They player had no respect for our time or attention. The results were catastrophic -not only for the game, but also in real life!

Context and perspective are important and should be applied critically toward role-playing, just as they are against any other aspect of playing an RPG.

Dear FireCat,

Huh? Wanna run that by me again? I really don't understand what you're getting at.

If you're saying that Nephandus' "friend" was half right, then I see why this argument is still going.

a) Most people believe RPG's are there to have fun (and sometimes learn and grow).

b) Strategy, luck, storytelling, improvisation and "acting" are all part of the game.

c) People place different levels of emphasis on the elements stated in b.

Solutions?

1 – Play with people who's tastes don't prevent you from enjoying the game.

2 – When someone's difference in taste keeps the group from having fun, discuss it. If no enjoyable compromise can be found, leave or have the person leave the game.

3 – If you focus too much on one of the factors in b, play something else: chess, cards, once upon a time, improv or join an amateure theatre company.

4 - Stop trying to convince others that one element of b is more important than all the others, the only essential element is the enjoyment of the game, no?

Cthulhu Matata and "vive la difference"

'Huh? Wanna run that by me again? I really don't understand what you're getting at.'

Nephandus doesn't seem to be agreeing with Dwhoward to the extent of these illogical views which continue to get him new posters after the initial flurry, to debate the points (or try to; how much of a debate can you have if one side says 'I'm sorry, I can't refute or even address your arguments, but I consider them unanimously without merit, and won't say which ones these are.'?), in a longer form:

Nowhere do I see here 'must take place within the structure of the game'.
Nowhere do I see here 'must take place within the structure of the scenario'.
Nowhere do I see here 'must take place within the structure of the adventure'.
Nowhere do I see here 'must take place within the structure of the dungeon'.

'If you're saying that Nephandus' "friend" was half right, then I see why this argument is still going.'

Nothing so simple as that. It's like saying someone was half right for deciding not to kill everyone in the world by using toxic gas; they'd employ a nuclear bomb instead. I'm talking about fundamentally different qualities of a given motivation.

The rest of your post seems to summarize what everyone has been trying to tell Dwhoward :) Re Solution 4: Then why have this rant, eh?

'*What* is the thing that you don't see "must 'must take place within the structure of the game etc.'

A direct quote, from your post:

'Role-playing, by itself is not sacrosanct in an RPG game. It exists within a context – '

When the words of another person are 'quoted' directly above another post, it is generally accepted that the new words are a direct response to the old. And implicitly, the 'quoted' words are for use as a source in understanding the new words.

'*What* is like someone using a bomb intead of gas? I don't quite get the simile either.'

The theory Sam had about your player being 'half right'.

'Which "side" is saying "I can't refute your arguments?"'

For further clarification, look for posts by 'Coilean', dates as follows, and check out Dwhoward's around them.

On June 29, 2002 05:37 PM, On June 29, 2002 05:15 PM, On June 25, 2002 12:23 AM, On June 25, 2002 12:15 AM, On June 24, 2002 10:28 PM, and On June 24, 2002 08:48 PM.

And a post by me, 'FireCat' :) on On June 25, 2002 02:23 PM. Oh, I found one more 'Coilean' post, earlier: June 24, 2002 07:16 AM.

"Coilean mac Caiside's posts are often incoherent, "

Essentially, they are hard for you to understand, aye?

"rife with personal attacks"

If they are so "rife" with personal attacks, how hard could it be to find one or two and demonstrate them? A personal attack would be, on the June 24th [10:28 PM] post, replying to "As an author, I feel a personal obligation to address legitimate reader questions and discussions; as the person responding, I get to choose which are legitimate. But, as a reader, you should feel no such obligation." with "Have you ever considered a career in political office, Dhoward? I am sure your attitude of "If you don't like my lies, at least let me bullshit all the other people here!"."; I didn't, I simply addressed the presumption that other people would blindly believe in your righteousness for matters you did not care to debate [your original point is also incorrect; you get to choose which to reply to, as the person responding, NOT which are legitimate].

"and usually argued in bad faith (by intentionally misunderstanding other posters"

I find it difficult to imagine the arrogant kind of mind which must be required to presume that, if your logic is not instantly, intuitively comprehensible to a reader, they are deliberately misconstruing you.

"and by constructing "straw man" arguments)."

Again, some examples would be nice. I've seen other people do it; why haven't you? Where's your evidence, Dhoward, where's your -proof-?

-Coilean mac Caiside

You just called me a liar and a bullshitter. You said that I'm arrogant. Those are personal attacks. But, like I said, anybody who believes in your "mislogic" isn't worth convincing. If they believe such stuff, I'm content to let them think that I'm wrong.

"You just called me a liar and a bullshitter." ... "Those are personal attacks."

HELLO!?! Did I not just SAY this???

I was explicitly demonstrating what a personal attack WOULD BE, as an EXAMPLE of one, to SHOW that I did NOT earlier.

And yes, arrogant you are. Unless you have a better word for making that kind of presumption? See, if you'd actually decided to directly address my description of your behavior, that would be one thing. But you didn't - you didn't argue that you hadn't been doing that, and I believe it's because you CAN'T. When you can challenge my points directly, instead of just whining "You called me a name! You're evil! You're also automatically wrong! Go away!", come back and try another post.

-Coilean mac Caiside

I've given some thought to the issue of personal playing style. I agree that a single game can accommodate several styles. I also agree that some styles are incompatible with some, many or all games, as with Nephandus' friend who seems only compatible with himself. But, I also say that certain playing styles lead to a longer lasting and more enjoyable game.

A related question that nobody has asked of me is "If the style in the rant is so great, why isn't it obvious? Wouldn't people realize that it is more enjoyable and naturally do it?"

Well, no. Some players try to enhance gaming into an art. Producing art can give a person a sense of satisfaction but satisfaction and fun are not really the same thing. The allure of producing art is the challenge to see whether it can be done or not and to express oneself. Once a particular piece of art has been achieved or expressed, it can quickly lose its value to the artist. The artist probably wants to move on to new art. This explains why even very dedicated role-players have difficulty keeping an interest in a single PC or game. Once the PC's personality has been fleshed out and expressed adequately (which usually only takes a few adventures), the PC is no longer interesting.

My rant encourages a style that revitalizes an interest in the accumulation of experience, treasure, magic and levels, that is, an interest in growing a PC and seeing him survive. To do that, it reintroduces the old idea of having the PC be a representative of the player, not just a role that the player acts out. Sadly, these days, that's taboo: any interest in accumulation (or improvement) of a PC is considered munchkinism. But it seems unavoidable: without an interest in growing the PC, portraying a relatively static PC is hard for even experienced role-players to maintain interest in over the long term. After a few adventures, it is tempting to want to invent a new personality with new quirks to make it fresh again.

I'd say that one-off games are actually much more suitable for the "acting" style. Conversely, a campaign seems to thrive on development and change in the PC. If the player is not interested in seeing his PC change significantly, but only interested in remaining faithful to the role of his PC, one-off games would allow that player to explore many more PC personalities and express himself better than being chained to the same PC for the duration of a campaign.

But campaigns have another attribute: they give a reason for people to regularly show up. With one-off games, there is no continuity so players may not attend consistently. So, while I think that the "acting" style is workable, if the players are skillful, I suggest that the style in my rant allows more enjoyment and interest to be taken from the game.

Highlights of Coilean’s logic and fair and reasonable debating style, from the beginning of this thread.

[Ad homenin – what relevance does surprising dmhoward have? This was the first personal shot in the thread btw]

It may surprise you, Dhoward, but there are other people playing in the game (and they're not just figments of your imagination - they're figments of mine, and so are you) - people besides you that have a vested interest in how the game turns out, and their idea of it may not mesh with yours. The game is not dictated by you alone.

[Either/Or Fallacy – that there are only two styles of play, and that to argue against playing dumb is to dismiss all role-playing]

You seem to be emphasizing a return to the "rote memorization" school of competence – […] Now, I am of the "players exercising their minds to create something new is good" school of thought

[Ad homenin]
Your view of "GAMING" seems very narrow. Are you sure you even have the right word?

[Either/Or Fallacy, straw man, possible ad homenin – could this be phrased in a way that does not characterize for us what dmhoward wants?]

you elevate the importance, not just of your own plots to the top. What you want, is The Way Things Are Going, and everything should happen to advance that plotline, or else not happen at all

[Condescension, point?]
I can spend the rest of the morning categorizing the myriad ways this statement is wrong.
Let me let you in on a little secret of life, Caliban/Dhoward - people are stupid. Not everyone is a trained SEAL team. You could go into a dungeon to [imagine this] EXPLORE, and have deliberately NOT asked people about what was down there because you wanted to find out for yourself

[Either/Or Fallacy – that role-playing and tactical games cannot co-exist – by definition it is a role-playing game]
And why allow a tactical view of things, which you yourself admit to be in the minority [yet fail to connect to your own words about only being useful in a few campaigns], to occur at the expense of good roleplaying?

[No Thesis, Apparent Straw Man - while addressed to dmhoward, it doesn’t really engage any of his arguments.]
Dhoward, I've told my players to look around a store next time they are in one, toy stories, general stories, et cetera. Why? To look around for ideas. See things, and imagine how they might be used in the game.

[Attempted Ad homenin? -by implication that you cannot imagine dmhoward enjoying creativity]

And that's the kind of creative tactics, which, somehow, I just cannot envision you enjoying.

[Straw Man - combative, but does not address any particular point made by anyone]
You can learn the stats of the monsters, but that matters little. Your tactics are supposed to vary, and if you spend more time describing your cool moves than everyone does rolling dice to figure out what happened because of it, then you're doing well. But you can't just use the same tactic in every environment, because you won't always be in the same environment,

[Ad homenin fallacy – again characterizing the opponent rather than the argument, and based on “tone?”)

Whether or not you make it a Rule, you are still advocating just that - but in the tone of one who is gently leading misguided children back to the One True Way it was once done.

[Faulty premise, ad homenin]
“You're right, too - it WAS once done that way. But, like all children, we grew up - and now roleplaying is more than just another word for a wargame”

1. Assumes that we did not roleplay as we were younger
2. Based on that assumption, it assumes that roleplaying by older people is “more mature” if they do it now, and didn’t do it then
3. Extends further for the ad homenin, which is that dissenters to your style are like children.

[Not a flaw, just ironic]

“But your logic is still broken ;)”
Aye, 'tis SO difficult to make a logic tree when others keep on wasting time uprooting fundamental flaws in said logic :)
[…]

[Ad homenin fallacy – engaging in speculation rather than engaging the argument]
You seem to have a very fixed idea of what a great GM would be, and conversely, what we need to DO to -be- great GM's.

[“Minority” Relevance ie. This movie had a big audience, therefore is a good movie]
“To paraphrase a point I made earlier, you are, by your own admittance, in the minority. Why haven't you applied your own advice to yourself, in acknowledging that your article won't be of use to everyone, in fact only to a small number of people?”

[Ad homenin]
“ It's only natural that you'd not want to waste any time discussing how you're wrong, when you could be putting forth more of them [fallible points].”
“I must wonder if you are the player or the GM in your game.”

On June 17, 2002 07:11 PM – [post does not appear to address anything, nor to have a point.]

[Unwarranted abusive sarcasm.]
A few questions about your group, Dhoward - do they have com-links internal to the helmets, a mental connection, some other way of keeping instantaneously in touch?
[…]
And a warning: don't let anything we try, including "common sense", stop you now! You're -so- close... the only threat left to your carefully laid plans now, is

[abusive ad homenin, does not address any actual point]
[assumes “middle ground” when it does not appear to be so. Dmhoward and I have posited a blend of RP and game. Coil has repeatedly called only for RP. Which is closer to “middle ground”]
Seriously, Dhoward, you can play your own friggin' game however the hell you want, but don't tell the rest of us we have to go with your flow, or be trying to ruin everything. Maybe where you live everything is so black-and-white. But where many of us are, there's plenty of middle ground.

[condescension]
-laughs- You've never played The Dying Earth, have you, Dhoward?

[ad homenin]
You seem overly obsessed with control, and I love being the one to point this out to you - you can show people that they have a choice, but it's rather hard to stuff the genie back in the bottle after - you can't simply tell people that they don't have even have the rights anymore to choo

[ad homenin]
And this goal has been expressed by whom - yourself? It may surprise you, especially if you were viewing your own participation in the game as more of an "Avatar" style than a "Character" style, but if

[Abusive ad homenin, straw man]
No, I don't believe it is. Again, and put in ALL-CAPS this time for your [very remotely] possible comprehension: THE PLAYERS CAN HAVE FUN ROLEPLAYING.

[ad homenin – if your argument is sound, we don’t need you to characterize for us what dmhoward is like]
You're just mixed up; it is always more fun to create than destroy, so long as it's YOUR CHOICE to do so.

[faulty premise – assumption that Coilean holds the middle ground]
Post after post, Dhoward, I see the same thing - refusal to acknowledge a middle ground.

[faulty premise: that Coil’s argument is logical and that it has refuted other points]
how do we tell the difference? When are you simply quieting down to acknowledge a point, and when are you ignoring them because YOU -FEEL- that they are irrational/emotional/repetitive? Since you have continued to use logic I refuted in earlier posts, I must conclude that you were ignoring them.

[Abusive ad homenin – are you even remotely trying to engage the point now?]
How comforting it must feel to have someone else out there backing up your inner confidence; that security of knowing anyone who disagrees with you, must also be acting from hatred towards you. Strike "logic", you need a -reality- check, pal. People just aren't like that [barring the minority you ever hear from], and I am certainly not. Literally. You CAN'T get me mad, or to hate you. Both are emotions. So is pity, which in itself IS a pity, because you [if anyone] deserve it.

"Once a particular piece of art has been achieved or expressed, it can quickly lose its value to the artist. The artist probably wants to move on to new art. This explains why even very dedicated role-players have difficulty keeping an interest in a single PC or game."

You're right - "can", "probably" - as a dedicated roleplayer myself, I've -never- encountered the difficulty you express.

"Once the PC's personality has been fleshed out and expressed adequately (which usually only takes a few adventures), the PC is no longer interesting."

This statement is predicated upon three presumptions: that the player uses "adequately" as a form of judgement, that "adequate" can be measured objectively and not just as a personal preference, and that the PC does not change as time passes.

You seem to state this below, with "But it seems unavoidable; without an interest in growing the PC, portraying a relatively static NPC", but upon closer examination [or just a realization of the inherent meaning, if you were reading it in order, and thusly taking it in context with the preceding part of the same paragraph], it actually is implying that dedication to roleplaying [along] is utterly incapable of providing any such thing; furthermore, you explicitly define the entire "interest in growing a PC and seeing him survive" as "an interest in the accumulation of experience, treasure, magic and levels".

As if nothing else could motivate someone towards those goals.

-Coilean mac Caiside

Now, I should clarify: I don't think that it is impossible. It is possible that somebody could create a PC and play an entire campaign (months and months) only acting out that one PC role, developing and evolving the persona and abstaining from all player wit and intelligence. It is possible but I think that it is too much to ask of even a very good player.

Here's what it seems to ask of the player. (1) To dissociate himself from the PC's victories and defeats yet remain interested in the PC enough to continue playing. (2) To find enough enjoyment from being a good actor to continue playing. (3) To thoroughly embrace an extra layer of restrictions that keep player knowledge and PC knowledge separate. (4) To stick with that PC, no matter how predictable and familiar that he becomes, or to continuously find layer after layer of subtleness to keep the PC fresh. (5) To always be on guard against the sudden urge to make his PC outrageous (using role-playing as an excuse to suddenly turn evil or be suicidal) just to relieve boredom.

Sure, not impossible. It is doable over five or six sessions certainly. But, an entire campaign?

Still, many people attempt to do it and most fail. They start to change PCs quite often to make the game seem fresh again. They get no joy from seeing their PCs go up in levels or gain magic or gain status because the PC is not them. Rewards for the PC are not the same as rewards for themselves. They have narrowed the enjoyment down to only one type: enjoyment at knowing that they acted the part well.

That may be enough for a few but most will probably just become very inconsistent players. They will show up once every few months but the narrowness of the enjoyment will make RPGs an occasional thing, not a steady source of enjoyment. It is a pity because we have a huge base of incredibly knowledgeable players who have talked themselves into a style that makes RPGs highly artistic but also very tedious.

Firecat, to be fair, I'm not sure if Coilean endorses the "extreme role player" scenario to the extent of the player in my campaign, but I'm sure we'll be enlightened soon. I joined to endorse dmhoward's POV, and was compelled to defend that endorsement.

My argument is against sacrificing group fun for individual role-playing "accuracy" in cases where the two cannot be reconciled.

This can include extreme cases like when one player's character background makes unreasonable demands on the other players, predetermining the outcome of scenarios and defining the setting as an aspect of character background (ie a prophet who always knows the truth, a champion whose faith makes her invulnerbable)

I also includes less extreme cases where, as in the original article, players are encouraged or forced to make dumb decisions or feign ignorance (it isn't always about a tactical grid or a stat) when the players themselves know better. In my estimation, the loss of player choice and "game value" in these circumstances exceeds the benefit that would come from such a minor display of role-playing.

I used to play with a far greater opposition to this kind of "benign" metagaming, until I realized that with most groups I witnessed and played in, it ended up in fights too often - with DMs and players arguing tortuously about what PCs could and couldn't know. PC wants to make gunpowder? No way. But what about dangerous looking statues? Do I need to lean on one before my character can conclude I shouldn't do that? In such a setting, is there any way we can imagine my PC knowing better than that? When a DM removes player choices like these, players aren't really participating.

When a player voluntarily plays dumb on a game decision, they are usually acting according to script. Minor metagame knowledge does not presuppose tactics (there may be more than one tactic, there may be mitigating factors, the scenario may still be difficult even with the knowledge).

On the other hand, playing dumb is a kind of script that DOES presuppose tactics (I MUST first use my sword on the skeleton or troll, even though I know they aren't so effective; I MUST touch the statue, open the coffin because my PC doesn't know better yet - on rd 3 I can accidentally discover that fire works).

That kind of script is rote. Not only does the player acknowledge the preferred tactic, but he must knowingly try a less effective decision first to make it "look good." In these cases, the player isn't playing a game and isn't really "discovering" anything about the character, nor is anyone else. With such barren role-playing value, the "playing-dumb script" merely delays players from finally getting to use their characters, and distracts and delays them from meatier role-playing opportunities (like an in-character chat where we say goodbyes before storming the Big Bad Critter's lair).

Yes, you have the point exactly Aeon. Pretending not to know tends to be a less enjoyable option than accounting for an experienced player's knowledge in the game somehow.

I've wasted far too much time with players and DMs who would rather just play dumb.

Please elaborate on what is meant by the "satisfaction of self-contradictory impulses".

I've been following this discussion from the beginning and I reckon the time has come to make a contribution. There's lots that could be said, but I guess I'd better summarise:

I strongly believe in playing according to the character's knowledge, not the player's knowledge. But I agree that, in general, you should consider that the character knows everything that the player knows about the world. I presume this is what Nephandus is calling "benign metagaming" but it doesn't seem to me like metagaming at all. It's just setting a basis for roleplaying, to try and prevent the kind of arguments that have been discussed.

Whatever you choose to call it, the result is the same.

There are times when the gamemaster has to intervene and say that your character doesn't know something. The most likely examples are going to be when:

1) someone tries to apply modern knowledge, such as the gunpowder example.
2) it's important to the plot. Such as when a party from a medieval European setting is transported to a land based on China, Japan or Central America (for example), or when the spirit of a 17th century englishman reappears in modern day New York. In a "fish out of water" setting like that it becomes very important that the players pretend not to know stuff.

That 2nd category can cover a multitude of sins - including examples like the suspicious statue - if the game master thought it was essential to the plot. The thing is that there has to be some sort of agreement with the players (explicit or not) as to how far they are going to have to pretend, and players are more likely to forgive a major plot twist (like a new world) than a minor one (like a statue).

It is possible to play a character who's ignorant or stupid (or obnoxious) and have fun without interfering with other people's enjoyment of the game. If it's carefully managed and the other players know what they're in for (and have agreed), dealing with such a character can be (almost) as much fun as playing it. Most of the time, though, such a character is going to be annoying and if the player doesn't acknowledge this... didn't someone suggest a new discussion re dealing with disruptive players?

I enjoy roleplaying. I like the tactical aspect as well (sometimes) but I enjoy the roleplaying much more.

The most fun I've had roleplaying is when my character's personality has changed - when I have felt that my character has grown and developed. It's pretty rare (it's happened to me maybe 2 or 3 times in over 20 years of roleplaying) but it can happen.

I still enjoy developing my character's skills and stats and collecting powerful items. Roleplaying doesn't preclude that. But I also tend to play systems and settings that don't have the same quantity of treasure or dramatic increases in power as you get in traditional D&D. Usually I'm playing GURPS in a semi-historical setting.

I do get bored with my character after a while. But the game master usually gets bored of the setting first and decides to change. Maybe these games aren't what DHoward would call a whole campaign, but they usually last 1.5 to 2 years (a bit more than 5 or 6 sessions!) and we usually have 5 players out of 6 turning up every week.

I do think that DHoward's post of 12 July is arguing against a pretty extreme type of roleplayer.

One thing that hasn't been discussed (as far as I've seen) is people interacting on a player level, rather than as their characters. On occasion I have played characters that, for one reason or another, don't like to push themselves forward and don't like to offer their opinions. The thing is, I am incapable of just sitting there listening to the other players dithering away (no offense, guys, if you're reading this!) when there's a decision to be made. I simply have to add my contribution to whatever's being planned. And in the game I am playing at the moment, although my character is a devout Buddhist, my advice is quite likely to involve mass slaughter. As long as I am allowed to express myself as a player, rather than as my character, this doesn't interfere with my concept of roleplaying.

Now if I tried to give advice to a player who's character was off on it's own I would expect to be rapped over the knuckles. If you go off on your own you have to deal with what you find on your own. But when a group of characters are together you can consider that there's a kind of "gestalt entity" called The Party that's able to mull over issues and discuss plans without the charaters getting in the way. We've never talked about it in quite those terms, but that's sort of the way that both the game I play in and the game I run work.

OK, so it sounds a bit like sophistry. And if you have a group of players that always stay in character and who call each other by their character names, something like this would totally destroy the mood. But if you have a group (like mine) that interrupts a battle to talk about sport or what they've seen on TV recently, and if the gamemaster can't crack the whip because he's usually the worst offender, and if all you're after is a relaxed and fun time roleplaying (well, mostly roleplaying) then this technique works well.

I still count myself in the roleplaying camp, rather than the metagaming camp. With this style of gaming, my ignorant young peasant still draws his sword to fight the troll unless the seasoned adventurer (played by a newbie roleplayer, and prompted by me speaking as a player) suggests that I should use fire. As a player, I'll suggest slaughtering the enemy patrol, but my Buddhist monk will have nothing to do with such a plan.

Hey, it works for me.

Thanks Colin!

I have a better understanding of this discussion now.

The "fish out of the water" campaign is very hard to roleplay and enjoy (for players and DM's) when the players know something relevant to the campaign that their characters shouldn't know.

For example:

I play the Star Wars RPG. I know more about the Star Wars universe than the GM, I've read most of the novels and graphic novels and have somehow retained most of the info. Luckily, my GM is smart and the Galaxy is big so we don't play anything near the main characters from the novels and movies.

Playing a bunch of primitives in a modern worls only works if the technological level is beyond our own or if the technological level is Victorian (most of us wouldn't know how to operate a 19th century car or the Wright brothers' plane.)
Even closer to our time period, we would blow up most electronic gear from the 50's that needed to warm up before operating.

One has to make an alien environment alien to both players and characters in order to enable the players to discover how that alien environment works. Sci-Fi is great for that but fantasy RPGs and modern RPGs can be good also.

Also, if you're aiming at mystery and surprise (ex: playing call of cthulhu or X-Com UFO or Hunter) why not trick the players into believing their playing something else? The Gurps and D20 system can provide you with many ways to surprise your players and enable them to draw on any knowledge they may have to try to figure out the story.

I once played a RoleMaster campaign where we found an encrypted note. Our poor GM used the Russian alphabet to encrypt the note, not knowing I read the language. Since I was playing a bard and had linguistics as a skill the GM let me use my personnal knowledge to decipher the text. And, until the bad guys realised (3 game sessions later) we could read all their memos, they didn't change their code.

Now, was that good or bad roleplay? I'm not certain. But as someone mentioned earlier, me and the GM agreed on a way to make my knowledge of the Cyrilic alphabet a part of my character, instead of having pretend I couldn't read the note.

You'll have to admit that letting your players know how to deal with a troll isn't like letting them act on the knowledge that Senator Palpatine is really the Dark Lord of the Sith, now is it?
But then, who would be stupid enough to put their players in such a situation unless they could affect the outcome somehow?

Just prevent OOC knowledge from ruining you game by making it non important to the main plot. Or twist reality in such a way as to make OOC knowledge unreliable.

Boy, this discussion is getting more hilarious then the one about "Why Star Wars Galaxy Might Suck" and "The Demise of Dungeons and Dragons".

Cthulhu Matata!

"My argument is against sacrificing group fun for individual role-playing "accuracy" in cases where the two cannot be reconciled."

My argument, is that they -can- be reconciled - more easily and more often than Dhoward thinks.

"I also includes less extreme cases where, as in the original article, players are encouraged or forced to make dumb decisions or feign ignorance (it isn't always about a tactical grid or a stat) when the players themselves know better. In my estimation, the loss of player choice and "game value" in these circumstances exceeds the benefit that would come from such a minor display of role-playing."

This statement contains the presumption that the only benefit worth considering in such an instance, would be a "minor display of roleplaying".

"When a player voluntarily plays dumb on a game decision, they are usually acting according to script."

Script? What's that? I thought you said they were doing so voluntarily? Ah wait, the -player- is voluntarily playing dumb. What's "playing"? Is the character your joystick, which you insert into the game-world and happily twist around to accomplish your objectives?

"On the other hand, playing dumb is a kind of script that DOES presuppose tactics (I MUST first use my sword on the skeleton or troll, even though I know they aren't so effective; I MUST touch the statue, open the coffin because my PC doesn't know better yet - on rd 3 I can accidentally discover that fire works)."

That's just as bad!

In both cases, you're using out-of-character knowledge to pre-determine your character's actions. You've effectively ruled out what is not only a useful option, but a VALID option, which restricts roleplaying.

I think what's blocking us off from resolution here, is a fundamental paradigm difference - everything you do is built off of the "play myself, even if I call it roleplaying"; the character isn't alive to you, isn't a separate person, it's nothing but a script of rote actions!

And Aeon, the problem, as stated much earlier above in the thread, is that [if Dhoward's "solution" does get around], people will become motivated to buy -all- of the books, keep it hidden from the GM, and when they run up across the ages-gone monster who's so rare even it's existence has been clouded by obscurity, the PC's can "stumble" across the right strategy to deal with it.

Myth and legends grow; they may not have all the ways necessary to deal with a monster, and they may report entirely ineffective strategies. Some of these tales were probably started by self-same monster, if it was intelligent! The older a foe, the less familiar it is, the more likely someone can "mix up its description" and try out strategies that they've "heard of".

-Coilean mac Caiside

"Now, I should clarify: I don't think that it is impossible. It is possible that somebody could create a PC and play an entire campaign (months and months) only acting out that one PC role, developing and evolving the persona and abstaining from all player wit and intelligence. It is possible but I think that it is too much to ask of even a very good player."

In short, you're so anchored to your beliefs and perceptions regarding the... extremely remote possibility... that you're convinced it'd be more effort than it'd be worth for even the best of players. I respect that; it fits in with your views. But I'm debating the "worthwhile" aspect of things.

"Here's what it seems to ask of the player."

Despite overlaps, I'll address each of these separately. Yes, there are overlaps - and while this does add to the total "number" of "requirements", I'll point out that not only might you have missed some, but "fun" is also a "requirement" by your definition.

"(1) To dissociate himself from the PC's victories and defeats yet remain interested in the PC enough to continue playing."

That's inaccurate. Caring is good; interfering, is not.

"(2) To find enough enjoyment from being a good actor to continue playing."

Not the only source of enjoyment - but if it were, then like I said, yes, "fun" would be a requirement [has it occurred to you that maybe these people choose the activity -because- it is fun?].

"(3) To thoroughly embrace an extra layer of restrictions that keep player knowledge and PC knowledge separate."

Considering it's a "role-playing" game, I would say no, these are not an "extra" layer of restrictions. Technically, in that sense, they're not restrictions at all - since their lack didn't properly exist in a role-playing game in the first place.

[Damn those "gravity" restrictions which keep us from flying all over the place to where we want to go.]

"(4) To stick with that PC, no matter how predictable and familiar that he becomes, or to continuously find layer after layer of subtleness to keep the PC fresh."

I don't really see that as an "either/or" statement. It presumes, in role-playing, only two states of being:

The PC becoming increasingly more familiar and predictable.

The player, needing to keep the PC "fresh", continually finding layer after layer of subtlety as a means of doing so, resulting in the PC seeming more "fresh".

1. What's wrong with the PC becoming more familiar and predictable? This, after all, is partially the -point- of roleplaying - to get to know your character better [this has a nifty side result of being able to role-play your character better].

2. There are other reasons to find layer after layer of subtlety, than "fresh"ening the PC. The results of doing so may be more numerous and varied than just "fresh"ening the PC.

"(5) To always be on guard against the sudden urge to make his PC outrageous (using role-playing as an excuse to suddenly turn evil or be suicidal) just to relieve boredom."

Presuming, of course, that boredom occurs, that this is the method through which the player will attempt to relieve it, and that said activity should only result from an attempt to relieve boredom.

"Still, many people attempt to do it and most fail."

Two questionable statements in this sentence. Where are your statistics of "many" people accounted for? Does it logically make sense to you, and therefore everyone else does it? Do you know a few people who do so? What about the "most" who fail? I mean, if you can't grasp how they would succeed, how could they possibly do so? And what if you're misrepresenting what they try to accomplish in the first place?

"They start to change PCs quite often to make the game seem fresh again."

Why should I be motivated by a desire to make the game fresh again, when I change my PC's? Couldn't I just be motivated by a desire for... uh, I dunno... realism?

"They get no joy from seeing their PCs go up in levels or gain magic or gain status because the PC is not them."

That's a very selfish point of view to be inflicting on us roleplayers. Don't we have the right to enjoy seeing the fortune of others? Aren't we credited with any imagination, the right, as any human being might do, to look into the mirrored window of the rich and famous, and pretend, just for a moment, that we were in their shoes?

"Rewards for the PC are not the same as rewards for themselves."

Well, duh. When you get right down to it, the rewards aren't what matter, though. It's the fun you had, the stimulation of your creativity/imagination, and the development of the mind which you walk away from it with, which truly belong to you. Success brings nothing. That still doesn't mean we can't enjoy them.

"They have narrowed the enjoyment down to only one type: enjoyment at knowing that they acted the part well."

That's a very narrow-minded point of view to force upon us roleplayers. Who are you to say that we can only enjoy one thing? How about our contention that we've learned how to enjoy something else... but -more-?

Jealous that we're having more fun than you, Dhoward?

"That may be enough for a few but most will probably just become very inconsistent players. They will show up once every few months but the narrowness of the enjoyment will make RPGs an occasional thing, not a steady source of enjoyment."

This presumes we're only drawing enjoyment from that one aspect of the entire role-playing game.

"It is a pity because we have a huge base of incredibly knowledgeable players who have talked themselves into a style that makes RPGs highly artistic but also very tedious."

How droll. What "tedium". Actually taking the time to enjoy each game, instead of finishing up the scenario so we can move on to the next one.

-Coilean mac Caiside

I don't think boredom with your character is as big an issue as DWHoward makes out. In the campaigns I've been involved in over the past umpteen years we've had players leave the group for one reason or another but we've never had a player change their character. We've never had a character die, either, but that's another issue. I have twice been tempted to change my character (though not through boredom) and each time I've been talked out of it by the gamemaster.

I think it's because we have such a relaxed playing style. We aren't extreme roleplayers, as I'm sure anyone who read my first post would spot, but I believe (and I think the others in my group would agree) that most of the enjoyment of the game comes from playing our characters.

I can think of one example where, by playing my character to the hilt, I was threatening to derail the whole adventure. The GM could have just killed me off, or he could have let the dice fall and deal with whatever happened (and possibly wasted a great deal of work he had put into planning the next stage of the adventure). Instead he chose to bring about events to short-circuit my plans and get the story back on track. I was annoyed, but he took me aside and explained why he chose to do what he did. I was prepared to compromise, unlike (it would seem) Nephandus's "Joan of Arc" player.

(I was even happier when my character picked up 2 very nice items shortly after that. So there is a place for rewarding characters with treasure in a GURPS game, I guess. But I can still enjoy it as a roleplayer.)

I agree that arguments over metagaming should be avoided. The players need to trust that their GM will rule fairly and consistently. If you've got that then there shouldn't be any problems. My group's style is pretty relaxed, so we can enjoy our roleplaying without getting bogged down in arguments of that sort. I can imagine that a group of "extreme roleplayers" might get so caught up in their characters that conflict develops between players and between the players and the GM. But I can equally imagine a group of extreme roleplayers that are considerate of each other's fun and who have a strong, focussed and very creative GM.

Is there any real value is discussing "extreme roleplayers" without a rigorous definition? Despite some of the posts that have gone before, we aren't really discussing the merits of extreme roleplayers vs extreme munchkins or extreme adventure gamers, are we?

I think we're all just jockeying for position on the middle ground.

Oh, and I'm amused by the suggestion that roleplaying is "chic and elite"! Among gamers, maybe. But I still blush when a "civilian" asks me about my hobbies.

So, just to reiterate a point from the original rant, I do not specify a balance between role-playing ("in town") scenarios and dungeon ("on adventure") scenarios. So, a person could be perfectly in tune with my rant and still be in "role-playing mode" all the time. Such a campaign would probably be in a city style and the adventures would be indirect (rather than "go here, fight bad guys, return to origin" adventures).

For the feast example, if I were the GM, I'd let each player choose himself. If a player wanted to make those saves and one even wanted to automatically fail a save, fine. If not, fine, too. But, those are just a GMing style decision rather than anything else.

For other GMs, I'd have no opinion. There is no obvious danger or obvious sabotage by the players going on here. If they were hired as guards for the feast, that'd be another matter. But, in the presented case, I see nothing objectionable to any or all PCs becoming blind drunk.

Are all these rolls restricting [my] choices too much? For me, personally, yes, but maybe not for somebody else. I prefer to have a choice as a player rather than have dice dictate my PC's conscious actions. But, again, it is personal taste, not anything else.

If a player says "I'm a peasant from the sticks. I've never seen so much food and drink in my life. I'm not making my will save, I'm going straight to fortitude." are they playing dumb and behaving unreasonably? No. Without a direct threat or knowing a specific objective for this session, he's doing nothing wrong.

I'll do Colin the courtesy of allowing him to present variations on this scenario in follow-up posts and refrain from distorting his original scenario.

http://www.rpg.net/pf/read.php?f=91&i=4&t=4

I do *not* insist that all players always make the best decision for the good of the party. I do insist that players refrain from making silly or dumb decisions, thinking that those are required to be good role-player. In the case of the feast, the decision to get drunk may be suboptimal but not straightforwardly silly or dumb.

If going to the feast and getting hangovers is a plot device at the beginning of the adventure, that's probably ok. I agree: Nobody is going to object to such a "no way that we could've known" introduction. Being sober probably wouldn't have saved the king.

But, if a ham-fisted plot device occurs in the middle of an adventure, I'd just call it poor GMing. I have no objection to fast-forwarding using a narrative, as long as the GM has the PCs perform likely or benign actions. But, using a narrative to make PCs perform actions that the player would not have and having those "narrative" actions have serious consequences is just poor style. Likewise, asking or forcing the PCs to execute unwise actions for the sake of the story is bad GMing. If the PCs accidentally do something that turns out to be unwise later on, that's completely different.

A good plot device will cause the players to voluntarily involve their PCs in an adventure and progress the story. A ham-fisted (bad) plot device will fail and the party won't follow it (in which case the GM usually reacts by manually forcing the party to do some involuntary action that will trigger the plot device and push the PCs into the plot). If you are a player, maybe you take pity on your not-so-good GM and agree to follow his plot device. That doesn't make it all right but it does continue the game. If this happens too much, the game will probably die because plots created through unrealistic actions aren't very interesting.

'But playing dumb, being lazy, being incompetent, being self-involved, making excuses, making unrealistic adventures, trying to make do with played-out modules and railroading are ways to use role-playing subtract from the game, rather than add to it. '

I'll concede that, in tandem, the examples posted to this forum have proven it true. But you have still failed to provide support for two cases:

A) 'Subtracting from the game' being the intent, and sole result, of that RP.
B) Any of these factors, on their own, still create the same effect.

There is something to be said for DMs earning the trust of players too. In our last group, our problem player decided he needed to use the 3rd edition rules to play a Duergar as a PC, because he felt it was more imaginative to do so. I countered that playing one mythical creature (the Duergar) was no more or less imaginative than playing another mythical character such as "basic" Dwarf.

When I realized he would not relent, I allowed it, with several game restrictions so as not to make that character more powerful than the other 3rd level PCs. I also altered the environment to include Duergars that are not evil, to provide the other players some plausibility that their characters would accept him. I also made a secret note to never use Duergar as antagonists because such a story would focus to much on the one player.

We switched roles, with him as DM and with me as a player joining the same group. As the new DM settled in, he decided to make his former Duergar character the party's arch-enemy. He did some terrible things.

Now, betrayal is an interesting hook. But in this case, it was tainted somewhat in that we as players, rather than as PC's, had bent our consensual understanding of the game world to accomodate this player's desire to play a creature that is normally evil. We had an unspoken contract among us which made this exception the norm. We were angry with the DM after that point because he'd abused the trust we'd afforded the player. From a story sense, the DM's decision retroactively made the PCs naive and stupid. We had already agreed that in our game, Duergars would not be different from other characters, and we didn't dwell on a million tests of worthiness to see if this one character was of decent folk.

Again, it was ham-fisted DMing, ramming through a plot point that damaged the continuity and internal logic of the game and story, while also invalidating players' smart game decisions (like the decision not to travel with duergar). The DM viewed the PC's (and former PCs) as more material for him to manipulate.

In the same adventure, he also clumsily used some kind of lethal and fantastical disease/curse/monster that was afflicting the land. Our PCs had been exposed to it, and there was a great hook. Unfortunately, he didn't fully translate the disease into game terms. Sometimes it was treated like a disease, other times, like a curse, and still other times, like an infestation or vermin. This made the players, especially me, very frustrated as we tried to deal with symptoms and new outbreaks. He viewed the disease only as a story hook so it was vital that the players could do NOTHING to mitigate the problem. But in attaching his hook to game concepts that certain players can affect (ie a disease can be cured, a symptom can be reduced, a curse can be lifted, a spell can be counterspelled, a creature can be killed) he invited a player revolt when he treated the effects differently each time we tried to interact with them. In essence, he was not changing the plot, he was changing the *game* to ensure we could not affect the plot.

Very clumsy. The discussions that arise from such inconsistencies are about how to play the game; they aren't really playing in themselves. For this reason he claimed to prefer 1st edition rules. He enjoyed their fuzziness, arbitrariness, and lack of clear definition because it enabled him to ram plot points through more easily, without having to account for players being able to affect them.

"This speaks to the point of poor DM style. It is usually bad form to include a decision point in an adventure that depends on players making only one possible decision."

Coilean: Such as always winning?

Nephandus: Straw man. In the example given, touching the statue had nothing to do with winning or losing; it was a minor decision along the road.

We have also played games in which the PC's failed to achieve their main "episode" objective in full or at all, and this had repercussions in later adventures. Winning the scenario is not a prerequisite - though if an entire party is wiped out, I'd tend to think it was due to a GM's error in selecting an appropriate antagonist.

Another game, the 1st edition Star Wars, used a railroad plot formula that actually depended on PC's losing in acts 1 through 4, finally winning in the end. In the two store bought adventures we played, the plot hinged on the bad guys getting away, or succeeding in their dastardly plans right up until the end. If the PCs actually did something that could reasonably cut things short before the next act, the GM had to make sure that the players didn't do it. We hated that game and never played it after that. I hated GMing it too.

My interpretation of (part of) DWHoward's rant is:

There is a player who isn't getting what they want out of the game. They're bored and they start acting up by designing and playing characters that are deliberately disruptive to the goals that the party is trying to achieve (kicking down all the doors in the dungeon, swearing at the king, etc). They defend their actions on the grounds that they are "roleplaying". The other players, who are taking the game more seriously, are getting increasingly irritated and aren't enjoying the game as much as they should.

A possible way of dealing with this is to foster an (old-fashioned) appreciation for the spoils of victory: immediate spoils like the treasure from a particular battle and the longer term rewards for success in the campaign goals. That should encourage players to play their characters to the best of their ability and pull together to achieve those goals.

========

This is not the way we've dealt with this sort of problem in my group. If the players are reasonable and the GM is able to exercise some authority then you can deal with players like this by taking them aside and talking to them. Find out what the problem is and deal with it. But judging from some of the posts above, some people aren't prepared to acknowledge that there is a problem. And talking hasn't always worked in my group, either.

Another solution is to leave it up to the characters to deal with it within the game. Tie up the annoying barbarian and dump him by the side of the road. Let the royal guard drag him off to prison and don't come to his aid. And if that player just generates another annoying character, do it to them again until they learn their lesson.

It sounds simple but it can lead to major disputes between players. Who is to decide what constitutes a "dumping" offence? And if the player takes a while to learn their lesson, what started as a nice friendly game can turn really nasty.

Is DWHoward's solution really the same thing as an obsession with "winning"? To get the rewards you have to "win" the battle or "win" the adventure, so I guess it does mean encouraging players to want to "win". But if winning means achieving the goals of the adventure, isn't it better that they want that anyway? And even in a game run along these lines, losing doesn't have to mean disaster. If you set things up so that winning is the carrot and losing means that you have to try another way, then you aren't forcing your players into a situation where they have to "always win".

Playing to win and roleplaying aren't mutually exclusive. They can be exactly the same thing, if your character is closely connected to the plot. It's a matter of setting your priorities, I guess, and each player can set their own independently. If there are rare conflicts between roleplaying and playing to win I don't think DWHoward is going to have any objection to someone who prioritises the roleplaying. However, if the conflicts are common then the chances are that you've created one of those annoying characters and perhaps you should re-think your character concept.

Firecat: Defend your concept or abandon it.

Nephandus: Eh? Perhaps I interpreted the esoteric comment "Such as always winning?" in a different way than you. Again, some pronouns might help us direct the arguments toward the proper sources. Although the order on the board has since switched, Coilean’s comment actually followed my post and quoted me, so I assumed it was directed to me, implying that my game depended on PCs always winning.

I held this to be a false argument, posited in place of my own point, then trumped by the same person who ventured it (aka straw man), as if I had made this argument. I never said PCs should always win, so I have no need to defend that point. I did say that players should TRY to achieve the challenges presented in scenarios. This does not assume victory though, and if it did, I don’t think it would be a very good game.

On the other hand, Coilean’s elaboration did indicate a reasonable way to continue to a plot when players miss a key scene or fail to win it, thereby missing out on vital plot information. It is good advice, it just doesn’t seem to engage anything I said in the post to which Coilean seemed to be responding.

Colin: But judging from some of the posts above, some people aren't prepared to acknowledge that there is a problem.

Nephandus: Agreed, the disruptive player (and other annoying ones I've dealt with) regarded their role-playing as a personal artistic exercise, somewhat independent of the social or game context. Their elitist attitudes about their "art" afforded them the ego to continue doing what they were doing even when they knew everyone else was upset with them. In fact, the worst DM asked us specifically before the game what we hated as players and then tried to use those things (ie psionics, loose tactical rules in combat, real life extrapolations on infravision) I think he did it to challenge himself - to take what we hated and, through his auteur DMing skill, try to make us like them. When we didn't, he tried even harder. When we still didn't, he got angry with us. It's hard to ask someone to compromise on art. Which is why, in this group activity, I choose not to frame it as art, though at times it can be artistic.

'This is not the way we've dealt with this sort of problem in my group. If the players are reasonable and the GM is able to exercise some authority then you can deal with players like this by taking them aside and talking to them. Find out what the problem is and deal with it. But judging from some of the posts above, some people aren't prepared to acknowledge that there is a problem. '

The spirit of the arguments against this seem to be that, if the player's claim that they are 'roleplaying' has any validity, everyone else (this being an RPG) is roleplaying as well, and so *real* roleplayers wouldn't think of it as problematic.

And that such a 'problem player', by extension, is not really roleplaying, just claiming it as an excuse.

And that Dwhoward, in conclusion, is attacking the wrong area - roleplaying isn't the root of the problem, people who CLAIM to be roleplaying, when they don't even have that mitigating excuse, ARE.

Yes. I suspect this is because most players rightfully want to have a unique contribution to the action. Some players, quite a lot actually, seem to look at the recommended races and classes as examples of what NOT to play, as if playing some obscure critter or class is more imaginative than playing a "standard" elf, or swordfighter. I was amazed with all the new 3e combinations available to regular classes, that one player marvelled at them all, and then promptly picked up the 3e monster manual to see "what else" he could be, before he'd even tried a recommended character class.

I could understand this rationale if there weren't a lot of options within classes and races. But I don't really follow it when once argues that one mythical creature is "more imaginative" than another. In older editions, these critters frequently unbalanced games, making one player more able, or less able, to contribute to the action than the other players.

Usually, I hold to a "core books only please" rule, to avoid dealing with players who go on buying sprees, poring through obscure tomes to look for advantages over players who haven't bought them. Given their motivations, these same players tend to interpret rules rather generously for their PC's as they explain the way it works to their DM, who may not have read the book.

I prefer to keep rules simple and specific, with as few as possible. One set of rules for all, to which everyone agrees beforehand.

'What, specifically, are you objecting to in what I said? The only thing that is clear is that you object to something I said. What, exactly, is the point you believe I must defend?'

I object to you introducing a concept and then insisting it isn't valid when someone else uses it to say something you weren't trying to say, let alone something you disagree with.

'It is usually bad form to include a decision point in an adventure that depends on players making only one possible decision.'

This was used to ask 'Such as winning?', and that question is entirely valid within the context of the rant we are discussing.

'Initially, I saw no need to elaborate on Coilean's point, which was an apparent straw man objection unrelated to what I wrote (and as yet, I have not been shown that it wasn't a straw man, though it may be a simple misunderstanding). '

Your interpretations aren't very generous, I must note. Has it ever occurred to you that assuming the other person is rational, and thereby capable of a rational discussion, would LEAD to a more rational (and fruitful) discussion?

Instead you make up long lists of every instance you can single out where they have made a technical boo-boo. These are still, technically, boo-boo's, but they're ones that don't matter. Take, for example, this snippet from the July 15th post:

'"They get no joy from seeing their PCs go up in levels or gain magic or gain status because the PC is not them."

That's a very selfish point of view to be inflicting on us roleplayers. Don't we have the right to enjoy seeing the fortune of others? Aren't we credited with any imagination, the right, as any human being might do, to look into the mirrored window of the rich and famous, and pretend, just for a moment, that we were in their shoes?'

It IS a very selfish point of view to be inflicting on those roleplayers, true. And a boo-boo, as such. But only in the technical sense. If nothing had been added to challenge Dwhoward's point, Coilean would have been left as complaining that 'Hey, we're very selfish, and I hate you for pointing it out!'; as it was, an address WAS made to that point.

It may be rude to point out deplorable qualities in other people, but that doesn't alter the validity of those statements. When are you going to stop focusing on the meanness of people to point out how you're less than perfect, and begin actually addressing what people are saying about this? Lack of denial is tantamount to an admittal, and you ain't denying nuthin' by whining about it.

My objection was that by quoting me and anticipating this example “such as winning?” he attributed that point to me –

To clarify further, if his statement was directed toward the general column, why did he quote me specifically?

Again, nothing in what he said in his argument seemed wrong or unworthy of attention. It just seemed wrong to pose it as counterargument to my examples, if that is what he was doing in quoting me.

'Well, this must be embarrassing. You see, I never said:'

WELL DUH!!!

I as much as implied that in my reply DIRECLY FOLLOWING THAT QUOTE:

It IS a very selfish point of view to be inflicting on those roleplayers, true. And a boo-boo, as such. But only in the technical sense. If nothing had been added to challenge Dwhoward's point, Coilean would have been left as complaining that 'Hey, we're very selfish, and I hate you for pointing it out!'; as it was, an address WAS made to that point.

'Again, nothing in what he said in his argument seemed wrong or unworthy of attention. It just seemed wrong to pose it as counterargument to my examples, if that is what he was doing in quoting me.'

Well, to point out what generally constitutes a full logic error, quoting someone does not have the sole implication of disagreeing with them.

In fact, to see it that way, when what was SAID made (by your own admission) sense, strongly implies you were pre-disposed to look for that in the first place. Fair enough, since there HAS been a debate going on in this forum :) But if you wanted to come to a satisfactory conclusion, as opposed to just furthering argument, it might benefit everyone to try and find points to agree on.

My point, is that invalidating the personal attacks for BOTH sides, and counting up the actual logic so far, would leave some people behind, because they've been entirely too focused on attacking the personal attacks, and using that as an excuse for ignoring the logic.

"The challenge was to Dwhoward, and obviously to highlight Dwhoward's illogic in refusing to give specific examples. Your doing so does not help his case, nor weaken the challenge against him."

You object to me commenting on a challenge that was directed to dmhoward on a public board. How then, do you justify commenting to me on the relevancy of Coilean's response to my post?

Also, you say:
"It may be rude to point out deplorable qualities in other people, but that doesn't alter the validity of those statements."

How then, is the validity of my specific examples invalidated? Going by what you said, surely it doesn't matter who shows these examples of ad homenins, or for what purpose. As you say it shouldn't alter the validity of those statements. They are what they are. Coilean had the last word on that matter and we didn't need to address it again until you brought it up. Frankly, I'm content to leave it the way it is.

Firecat :"that among all the selectively placed 'boo-boo' items, among (as Dwhoward just implied) the full context . . . there were points made. Rebuttals against other points. I was able to illustrate that there were not just the personal attacks around here - but also logic used, which has yet to be addressed."

Nephandus: Well, I'm not convinced about the soundness of a lot of logic I've seen here, but then, we needn't be so formal in this kind of discussion. I only raised the point of logic in reference to that poster, because he so often raised it with others (frequently innappropriately).

Ad homenin fallacy is particularly bad form though, because so often it comes in the form of a perjorative personal attack. These attacks do not engage the point and are often intended to engage their target at an emotional level rather than on a rational one - to "get their goat." If someone wishes to pepper their otherwise airtight argument with ad homenin fallacies, then they reap what they sew. It is perfectly reasonable to respond with the same discourtesy, and not engage them in discussion at all.

In your discussion of "boo boo items", or the fallacies I cited, you did not point out what arguments still needed to be addressed (despite the fact that I asked you to).

Since you went to the bother of going through all those posts and collecting all the personal attacks, I suppose I can do something similar. *yawn* But I'm much more lazy, so I'll just look at a single post, and surgically remove all the points:

'There are ways of thinking for which these problems don't even exist at all, or aren't problems.'

Could be taken as a personal attack, by implying that anyone who DIDN'T see these ways of thinking, is a blind fool. But it comes across more as 'the 'problems' you see aren't as common as you think'.

Translation: continuity CAN be maintained, by staying true to roleplaying, and shifting characters in and out of the campaign as they dictate, not the player.

'Why develop over time just to correct disadvantages and find more subtle layers on the PC's personality? Why not -form- more personality, why not use the events of the campaign to -create- changes? Or would you argue that people can never change, will always remain the same person throughout their lives? Why correct personality "flaws", when they can be turned into strengths?'

Translation: it may be hard because there are other, easier, ways - which still satisfy the roleplaying spirit. Also a rebuttal against the 'sole reason for doing this IS: ' assumption, and the 'digging inward, not building outward' assumption.

'Otherwise, my condolences for the players you have to deal with :)'

Translation: not everyone is like this, the players being described sound like they're near the bottom end of the ladder.

'It could become the start of a whole new roleplaying point, or the continuation of an old. Your best friend betrayed you, your family was murdered, and everything you'd ever loved has turned to ashes - those who still care about you [the other PC's?] then have to deal with trying to return hope to you, heal your soul - a decidedly different situation from that which most adventuring parties deal with, wouldn't you say?'

Translation: destroying the whole campaign only happens with a group that shuns roleplaying 'on adventure' to the extent of not caring about their fellow PC's as characters (if they are no longer suitable for adventuring, let them go away and find another character: don't fix the problem, avoid it).

'As the boundaries of roleplaying are pushed, "extreme" becomes constantly redefined.'

Translation: people think of themselves as extreme roleplayers because, once, that's what they were. But because they were given that title for what they did, not did what they did to EARN the title, they were not interested in changing to stay on the extreme edge. As time passes, they remember how they were once labeled, or how the label was applied to something which they were like, and don't replace it with the new definition.

'If you look at the WhiteWolf community, yes. [Sorry - bad joke.] If you look to those who are the most chic and elite, yes. But you have to consider those who aren't, to be fair. Are you going to condemn science for the nuclear physicists and rocket scientists? The stuck-up ones who snub you for not understanding their language? Start out with the roleplaying you can tolerate, and expand from there.'

A rebuttal against the 'some roleplayers I know are chic and elite, therefore ALL roleplayers are chic and elite' presumption.

'How much is "a lot"? Am I an artist if I don't care the floor in a museum is unswept, when I am there to look at the painting and sculptures? Am I an artist to ignore the fact I don't have a third fork, when the meal is delicious? Am I an artist for failing to give a game a bad review based on the graphics alone, when I bought it for the gameplay?'

A challenge to the 'lot' of players that Dwhoward claims exist; a mockery of the 'art' claim.

'So, you're saying that, "most people" do not possess the ability to both be artistic, and enjoy the game? Well, if Dhoward says so, who are we to argue?'

Can be taken as a personal attack, in the sense of sarcasm. But it again calls into question the definition of 'art' and the terms of 'enjoyment', and challenges the statistics Dwhoward invokes.

'While we're on the subject, can you define this "like art" phrase which you keep on throwing around in varying [generally with derogatory connotations] forms?'

A challenge to the non-specific forms of 'art', and their usage in a solely derogatory fashion. Indirectly, as such, a challenge towards whether or not the right word is being used.

'In other words, they enjoy more than one thing, which conversely, means that their "extremism" is in only enjoying the one thing. I don't see how this is so, but hey, by all means, if you are, stick with it! Just because you learn to enjoy other stuff, doesn't mean you have to abandon what brought you to this game, or what you're currently enjoying, whichever it is.'

Translation: the definition is called into doubt, but if it is true, being extreme is good.

'Listen to this. " ... is THE WAY" [emphasis mine]'

A reformation of the challenge towards Dwhoward's rant being applicable to ALL games. Dwhoward amended that earlier, clarifying that his only intent was to help those who encountered problems he described. The current issue appears to be whether his rant is the ONLY solution which can apply to those games.

'Do you mean "more enjoyable gaming" in the sense that "gaming is more enjoyable THIS way", or "you can enjoy gaming in MORE ways"? Somehow, I suspect the former. Mainly because I've been arguing for the latter quite some time now, and you continue to ignore this.'

Possibly a dig towards Dwhoward's practice of ignoring certain points; but certainly still valid as an indication of what his definition is.

'We enjoy these activities so much because we are doing both at the same time.'

Easily supported by other people's posts. Yup, this seems to qualify as a 'point'.

'You're telling us to remove the roleplaying from our gaming; to only do one at a time.'

A paraphrasement of Dwhoward's article and several subsequent posts (also by Dwhoward). Not much here of a personal attack, unless you count 'throwing the argument into a bad light'.

'This is not the way to "return" to enjoying more from our role-playing game.'

Translation: Going from enjoying both to only enjoying one, means you enjoy less. To 'return' implies you are in the place of not enjoying more from the role-playing game, currently, and will be there once you 'return'. Right.

'Translation: continuity CAN be maintained, by staying true to roleplaying, and shifting characters in and out of the campaign as they dictate, not the player.'

Seems what I was quoting got lost. Here it is:

'So she stayed behind in her home, when they passed by. I developed a new character, and was still playing him years later. My "retired" PC wasn't gone - she just had no reason to be involved in the current adventures. Coming back later was not a problem.'

'This is an allegation or an opinion, but you have not supported it. From this point forward, I will respond to points you say that I find coherant, clearly expressed, on topic, and which are supported. '

I *know* I've seen that attitude before. And, to quote an earlier poster, I didn't think common sense needed to be supported.

But here it is, for all the world to see, collectively assembled in one neat pile:

---

Straw man. In the example given, touching the statue had nothing to do with winning or losing; it was a minor decision along the road.

---

I held this to be a false argument, posited in place of my own point, then trumped by the same person who ventured it (aka straw man), as if I had made this argument.

---

Initially, I saw no need to elaborate on Coilean's point, which was an apparent straw man objection unrelated to what I wrote (and as yet, I have not been shown that it wasn't a straw man, though it may be a simple misunderstanding).

---

My objection was that by quoting me and anticipating this example “such as winning?” he attributed that point to me – as if I suggested that adventures with railroad plots depend on characters winning, or perhaps that plots that have decision points depend on characters winning. It really isn’t clear.

---

My objection was that by quoting me and anticipating this example “such as winning?” he attributed that point to me –

To clarify further, if his statement was directed toward the general column, why did he quote me specifically?

Again, nothing in what he said in his argument seemed wrong or unworthy of attention. It just seemed wrong to pose it as counterargument to my examples, if that is what he was doing in quoting me.

---

Substituting in a new argument in place of the one you are responding is a textbook straw man logic fallacy.

---

---

Yet NOWHERE have you provided any evidence that this 'straw man' actually exists. In defense, you have pointed out how you might have interpreted it as such; but regardless of how you *might* have interpreted it, the fact remains that you *did* interpret it in such a way as to attribute argumentative and aggressive to Coilean.

I appreciate the agreements you *have* found, but your choice to embrace the 'we disagree' viewpoint and stick with it, to the extent of reprimanding me for 'rubbing his nose in it', must be reprimanded as well.

By your denial to accept that you have made an error, you only compound the error, and invite further reprisals.

To clarify and elaborate further:

The error in judgement I feel you made, was to insist that the building of a point on something you said* was made with the intent to create an argument.

Not, my rebuke was in the form of insisting you made that with the intent to create an argument, which is how it could also be read :)

*In future, would you prefer that we paraphrased your points, without giving credit for them to you? Normally, the 'quote' serves as a sort of bibliography, showing what inspired anything following (true, this happens almost exclusively in the case of questions**, which are inviting the reader to post with their own answers).

** Wait, that WAS a question . . . damn.