gamegrene.com

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.