Roll-Playing or Role-Playing

[Querysphinx]

I've been sitting here tonight thinking about the evolution of my role-playing experience--all the way from high school to my early forties-- and it seems to me that, as time goes on, role-playing seems to involve less and less role-playing/character-development/improvisational-acting, and more and more dice-throwing/scene-shortening/story-detachment. The trend seems to indicate that, as time goes by there is less interest in investing emotional effort in role-playing. I have my own speculations as to why that might be, but I am interested in knowing what other people think.

So how much emphasis do you like in your character delevopment.

[Jagged]

I find it hard to chose between "I like to punctuate my character's story with a good brawl" and "My character's story doesn't need constant battle to be compelling." since both are true.

[Nevelon]

As with most things, a blend of both makes for the best results. Some fighting, some talking. I started gaming as a wargamer. Battletech, Car Wars, etc. We did play D&D, but it was mostly dungeon crawl with a little role playing. My current group is more role-play centric. I enjoy RPing, and am working to be better at it, but there are times something just needs to be stabbed. The trick is to do the right thing at the right time to progress the story and keep things fun.

A (bad) example: In a D&D game we were traveling through a swamp and a group of orc brigands stopped us demanding a toll. One of our party decided that we needed to talk to them, and try to negotiate. To orcs. Charging "tolls" in the swamp. It didn't take much chatting for the elven ranger with orcs as is favored enemy to get fed up and feather a few of them with his bow. This was a combat encounter. Not that talking past combat is wrong. We've had whole campaigns revolve around the concept of "Why deal with enemies today when you can put them off till tomorrow, and tomorrow never comes" where we weaseled our way out and around Sooooo much stuff.

On the flip side, I also see a lot of what I refer to as "kick in the door, piss on the floor" Roll-playing. People who wear heavy armor and carry greatswords to social functions. Who intimidate anything and everything weather needed or not. Why talk the information out of people when fear and a sound beating can get it faster?

Not every encounter needs to be a soul-searching trip into morality and character development. Not every encounter can be summed up in to-hit and damage rolls.

The best campaigns are a mix of both, at the right times, in the proper amounts.

[Matt Holck]

A fight can become an opportunity for development
the character are forced out of their comfort zone
clever maneuvering is memorable
what is remembered is what defines a character

clever maneuvering also occurs outside of combat
but the urgency of combat tests the limits of the character

[Cygnia]

I find it hard to chose between "I like to punctuate my character's story with a good brawl" and "My character's story doesn't need constant battle to be compelling." since both are true.

I'm in the same boat. It usually depends on the character I've made and system being used. However, I'm finding I like "just roll the dice and I'll railroad you to the next station" less and less from my GMs.

[RexMundi]

I've actually found the reverse to be true. The Older I get, the more Role Play and the less Roll Play. Now, don't get me wrong I also like the good brawl to, especially in my Fantasy and Super hero stuff, and I like my Epic Space battle in my Star hero stuff, but it has to be, a development. Not just a "OK we're here let's Fight!" (Got, miniature games for that, even the odd CCG). My sessions lately tend to be a bit of a mix of every option, because since I live in d20 Damnation Alley, I basically get a series of 1x a month games, instead of my preferred,every weekend or every other weekend sessions. Doesn't help that all my 1x a month folks are all Game Masters for the most part, so they all want to run their DnD game to *sigh* so my Hero stuff gets put on the back burner for three weeks at a time and I end up doing more Play by Post or Chat type set ups then naught nowadays.... My Kingdom for a good gaming group, heh.

~Rex.....had Role Player tossed up in his City of Heroes descriptions, and managed to survive the onslaught of thrown bricks and sharp things from the Roll Players.

[Wolf]

What I put was: My character's story doesn't need constant battle to be compelling.

I gotta agree with Rex, I started playing to get to the next combat, and I find that as I get older, it brings new life into the game to play it differently, not to mention, as I get older, I find that the key to every action isn't a violent reaction. But hey, to each their own.

[Querysphinx]

Thanks for all your thoughts so far. Keep 'em coming! I personally prefer much more role playing to less, though I can have fun either way. I look at the stack of character concepts I've come up with and realize that most of them are actually too complex/involved to make good RP characters.

[culhwch]

I actually recently got back into tabletop RPGs because MMOs are more about roll-playing, and I needed to do some role-playeing.

[steamteck]

I find it hard to chose between "I like to punctuate my character's story with a good brawl" and "My character's story doesn't need constant battle to be compelling." since both are true.


I find the same thing. I also note that combat can offer opportunities for role playing

. Facing the handsome charming villain once thought a very close friend who tried to marry her sister after murdering her mother certainly engaged one of my players emotions.

Finding a basically evil NPC that the players really really liked being attacked by Athena herself made some hard choices and interesting dialog. another time a vain heroine with an enraged if her face was marred was pulled off a villain she was nearly beating to death because he cut her face. She stopped struggling then said "I'm alright now" . She tend of course hit him again and told the superman type she'd tricked "Remember you really like me. Don't forget what good friends I am with your daughter" through a shit eating grin.

Just the other night a henchman type was leading the players into a trap. My wifes rather vain character read his mind she found out he wanted the OTHER superheroine in the party as his payment. when they sprung the ambush early his fate was not pretty.

[BoloOfEarth]

Like Rex, I think that my early (read: high school) RPG experience was much more combat oriented, with a little role-playing on the side. And as I got older the character development / role-playing aspect became more important.

I do find, however, that sessions seem more fun if there's at least some combat / group conflict involved at some point. As a Champions GM, I try and have a combat (or a few quickie individual fights) in each session. Some players almost require such a game format. Just like some players require some completely-noncombat character interactions. That's why I picked "I like to punctuate my character's story with a good brawl ."

[Cygnia]

Yeah, sometimes slinging LOTS of dice can be very therapeutic after a stressful day in the real world. Of course, it helps if said dice then actually hit/do enough damage... ;)

[RexMundi]

Heh, some times lots of Dice, Directed at one of the other players when they are being a spaz is very therapeutic. For the last Decade or so, My character builds have been along the lines of Maximum Potential, with Minimal Stuff on the sheet. IE: Damage Reduction 50% requires Awareness and Con roll instead of just 75% IMPERVIOUS!!!! MUHAHAHAHHAA! But then I've always gravitated towards Wildcat the Boxer, as opposed to Wildcat the Mutant Claw Machine.....

~Rex

[torchwolf]

My choice was "My character's story doesn't need constant battle to be compelling" but that's me as a player; as a GM I would tend to throw in a bit more potential for conflict, occasionally (as happens when players get totally sidetracked by interaction) throwing in some combat just to keep things moving forward. Pacing, pacing.
My experience has been varied, and I actually started out as a Traveller GM where the players often managed to get themselves killed because I pulled few punches when they acted as "terrorists with ultra-tech".
My first experiences as a player (in D&D) was what you might expect, heh. Combat intensity has always varied for me, depending on players and campaign, but in general I think I have mostly run a mix as a GM, maybe throwing in more combat situations as I learned pacing better. As a player, I've seen mostly combat-intensive games (some people tend to see those as "grittier" somehow), but I'm always happy to do more role-playing, whether the game is combat-intensive or not, and that mostly depends on how I play my character.
For some reason, whenever I make a socially talented character, there's an overdose of combat, and when I make a combat monster, there's a focus on problem-solving, so I usually want an extended exchange with the GM when I make a new character (something that often isn't possible for whatever reasons).

Agree with you, Rex, Wildcat the Boxer is infinitely more fun to play than Wildcat the Mutant Claw Machine... and one of the fun things about Hero is the amount of d6 you get to roll. ;)

[Checkmate]

In a face to face game, where I'm actually sitting in front of the GM and other players, I prefer more combat. The email that takes place between sessions can be all the RP. It doesn't have to be ALL combat, it could be the investiagive side of things, but if I'm in front of a GM, I wanna roll some dice.

[Ghost Archer]

I have come to the point in role playing where combat is generally the furthest thing from my mind when a session starts. If something occurs it is because the story requires it. In fact my games have reached a point where should combat happen, no dice ever hit the virtual table. Things just unfold in a logical manner condusive to the story but within the deliniated skills and powers of the characters as defined by Hero.

[Checkmate]

I have come to the point in role playing where combat is generally the furthest thing from my mind when a session starts. If something occurs it is because the story requires it. In fact my games have reached a point where should combat happen, no dice ever hit the virtual table. Things just unfold in a logical manner condusive to the story but within the deliniated skills and powers of the characters as defined by Hero.
My question here then, is why bother with Hero (or any other game system) at all? You're no longer playing the system, you're just sitting around a table telling a story. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but you're not really using any rules. Just have everyone think up a character concept and back story and have at it.

[Matt Holck]

Yeah, sometimes slinging LOTS of dice can be very therapeutic after a stressful day in the real world. Of course, it helps if said dice then actually hit/do enough damage... ;)


Ah Ha
In my last session. my character "Troy" could not take down a zombie while the Dwarf killed five.
And although the Drawf wants to build in army using Troy's nobility for legitamancy.
Troy has to question who is alpha.

[DrunkonDUty]

I went for punctuated brawling. Although it may also be true that my characters have a deeper emotional life than me. This does not mean they necessarily have very deep emotional lives.

[Ghost Archer]

My question here then, is why bother with Hero (or any other game system) at all? You're no longer playing the system, you're just sitting around a table telling a story. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but you're not really using any rules. Just have everyone think up a character concept and back story and have at it.

To quantify the characters and provide a comparison with NPCs. Many years ago I stumbled into Chat RPGs and quickly became disgusted by the numerous 'god' characters I found in a free-form RPG. Having played Hero for so many years, I steered a group of these players into actually defining their characters and in doing so structured their gaming with Hero. I introduced them to online virtual tabletop gaming, OpenRPG, WebRPG and now KloogeWerks. We went the whole way, maps, virtual dice, online character sheets, for years but now my players are down to only a few. They've become adept with the system and trust the GMs to the point where they no longer need to roll dice as the GM will ajudge whatever the situation based on related power/skills and the needs of the story. Personally, I rarely make a dice roll but i cannot say whether that is true with the others when they GM.

[rjcurrie]

In a face to face game, where I'm actually sitting in front of the GM and other players, I prefer more combat. The email that takes place between sessions can be all the RP. It doesn't have to be ALL combat, it could be the investiagive side of things, but if I'm in front of a GM, I wanna roll some dice.

I'm almost the opposite. I'd rather see the combats resolved away from the table. I often find them less interesting than role-playing scenes, either my own or those of others. I find the character stuff fascinating and it tends to shine more in non-action scenes.

[Broadsword]

I like the Bull Session too. The problem usually is that whatever my character is good at is surely not going to be needed, other then if it is a fight. And even then I'm usually just a punching bag.

I prefer Role-Playing, but almost always things come down to Roll-Playing, especially since half our players are aged 10-14.

Myself, I don't like diceless, as it depend entirely on the generousity, or lack thereof, of the GM. The Random Element that makes it possible you just might beat the five to one odds, is just not there. GM: "What were you thinking? Of course you are defeated and captured. There was four of them and one of you."

[casualplayer]

I like lots of conflict, lots of tension, lots of drama, little of which really has to be combat. Super soap opera for me.

[teh bunneh]

I've been sitting here tonight thinking about the evolution of my role-playing experience--all the way from high school to my early forties-- and it seems to me that, as time goes on, role-playing seems to involve less and less role-playing/character-development/improvisational-acting, and more and more dice-throwing/scene-shortening/story-detachment. The trend seems to indicate that, as time goes by there is less interest in investing emotional effort in role-playing. I have my own speculations as to why that might be, but I am interested in knowing what other people think.

You're only saying that 'cause you're gaming in my group these days, and everyone knows that if it don't involve bloodshed and broken bones, I'm just not interested in running it. :snicker:

Seriously though, don't take the Bloodmater game as typical. When I started it, I pretty much told you guys that this was going to be a tactical skirmish game, with maybe just enough story to tie all the fighting together. Sooner or later, I'll get tired of it and we'll go back to something a little less "kick in the door and piss on the floor" (love that phrase, Nevelon!). :)

Now, roll for initiative!

[Querysphinx]

You're only saying that 'cause you're gaming in my group these days, and everyone knows that if it don't involve bloodshed and broken bones, I'm just not interested in running it. :snicker:

Seriously though, don't take the Bloodmater game as typical. When I started it, I pretty much told you guys that this was going to be a tactical skirmish game, with maybe just enough story to tie all the fighting together. Sooner or later, I'll get tired of it and we'll go back to something a little less "kick in the door and piss on the floor" (love that phrase, Nevelon!). :)

Now, roll for initiative!

I was seriously not trying to implicate your game, just a general trend.

[novi]

I ended up with punctuated, though really tempted to say that my character have greater emotional depth than me. Stupid low-self-esteem and depression...

Like a lot of people, I started off with a bunch of atrocious D&D games more about the combat than anything else. But when the only way to improve your character requires you to get into combat...

I find myself lately doing a lot of talking and non-combat stuff in games. A lot of that is the guys a game with, one of whom is all about plumbing the depths of his character, and another who loves playing "Hey, look at me!" characters. He did improv theater at one point. I think that by and large, we'd rather leave the tactical stuff to computer games where it can keep track of all the rules for us, and focus on the interpersonal stuff when we get together.

But I'm only 27. Who knows how I'll answer in another decade?

[lapsedgamer]

When I play, I want to stay pretty close to the genre. I love supers with a Bronze Age flavor, and I would love to play that type of game again one day. Combat is part of the storyline, but I like the backstory and character interaction stuff too.

For my part, I can't stand Monty Haul or Hack and Slash games. Body looting is annoying to me unless it's in genre--like Post Apocalypse or really grim cyberpunk--or if it's the point of the mission. We came to find X and the dead guy had it last. I can't stand people who try to enforce D&D conventions on every genre.

I cringe when people in supers games stop to take pistols and grenades from defeated criminals. Dude, the blast that comes from your little finger packs more of a wallop than that 9mm.

Player: "Well, we could sell it all."
Look, anyone who would be willing to buy it from you, you should be taking to jail.

Player: "I might need it later."
Even if you might, the genre is not necessarily about you strapping grenades and pistols all over your body, unless that's your archetype, and then you would have had to pay for all of it in points anyway.

Player: "That's stupid"
No. This just isn't a D&D or Shadowrun game.

[teh bunneh]

I was seriously not trying to implicate your game, just a general trend.

Just ribbin' you. Don't sweat it. Now, roll for initiative!!!

[Jagged]

My question here then, is why bother with Hero (or any other game system) at all? You're no longer playing the system, you're just sitting around a table telling a story. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but you're not really using any rules. Just have everyone think up a character concept and back story and have at it.

Maybe the question should actually be: What percentage of your role playing session requires rules?

[Jagged]

However, I'm finding I like "just roll the dice and I'll railroad you to the next station" less and less from my GMs.

Because my gaming group doesn't meet that often any more we can't cope with "plots" and therefore have to get lead from one encounter to the next. The games are still fun because there is plenty of room for character-driven "stuff". Its a shame though cuz our ref used to come up with great plots (and still does) but if you only meet a few times a year you are never going to remember enough to play the detective ;)

[RexMundi]

Yeah having that same issue myself. REALLY need to find a consistent gaming group, heh.

~Rex

[Prestige]

I like role playing and character development more than combat. I definitly have more with meaningless role-playing than meaningless combat. Not that combat doesn't have it's place in character development...it can have me loose interest.