Roleplay vs. Rollplay, yes the old argument Options

[JTNLANGE]

I think some of the discussions on these forums over these changes has its roots in role vs roll. The group I play with is much more into storytelling and entertainment then rolling dice and applying results. I am not trying to say either is better or worse then the other, I am just saying as a personal group preference, my players will handicap their characters to tell a good story. I currently have a player running a troll shaman who just learned his powers. He is the only spellslinger in the group. He started out with a magic of 3 and is still unsure how to conjure spirits. While some may say that this is no fun as he can't sling any major mojo and might actually hurt a team, Part of the game for that player is the journey to unlocking more magical secrets. All goes to preference I think. I love wiping out loads of henchmen in a single blow and level whole buildings with nothing but my mind, and We do play that way on occasion, but for the most part we tell a story. Anyone else have any insight as to the roll vs role thing

Trevor L.

[Pendaric]

I would love to have this conversation. This is playing with napalm close to an open flame though.

My take on this is there is a perfect blend of the two poles of role vs roll, like yin and yang. In the perfect balance they produce the perfect game, maximum enjoyment and like all art make you think and feel so you take something real from the illusion of make believe.

The perfect mix is different in every group and every game hell every moment of play. Like a good cocktail its all a matter of personal taste.

[yukongil]

I agree with Pen, a roleplaying game must be a balance of the two, otherwise you are just doing bad dinner theatre or playing a board game. Our beloved hobby exists on the verge of the two.

in the past few years I've learned the fun of mixing the two, especially in that dreaded zone of social encounters. I believe in playing my characters stats and skills and especially rolls. So if I build my character with a load of social skills, I'll play suave, or sophisticated, wordy and social, if I don't have any, then tacturn, grim or quiet. If I spend points on these skills I expect them to do something in game.

Now the really fun part is playing your rolls. Roll your social skill, and then play it accordingly, it can be challenging to play like that on the fly, but can lead to some great encounters and in the case of botches, can lead to some insanely entertaining moments.

[JTNLANGE]

I agree, I think you do need a good mix of the 2. Otherwise you need a degree in acting to get through a game. I was just thinking that sometimes we all use the dice a little too much to determine what is right. While that may the case at times, and I in no way discourage that, I think a good dramatic moment should also be about player action regardless of the roll, if the scene calls for it.

Trevor L.

[nezumi]

No, you play whichever one your group wants to play. If your group wants to play Shadowrun turned Warhammer, then that's what you play. If your group wants to play Shadowrun turned dinner theater, than THAT is what you play. You mix the two as much as is required to keep your players happy.

[yukongil]

which begs the question; are you playing Shadowrun, or are you playing a board game or doing dinner theatre? It's in the mix that it becomes an RPG, otherwise I think one is just obfuscating the fact of the matter.

[Chrysalis]

Is it Shadowrun if I play a game of Escape from New York with trolls, elves, and dwarfs as figures? How about just playing Dawn of the Dead instead?

We all have different views on what is the fun part in roleplaying games. Some people like dinner theater others think it is about the applied mathematics.

Some people like emotional content, others analytical.

[Apathy]

The zeroth rule of RPGs (or any other game): The players must have fun. And the GM is also a player, so he gets a vote, too.
If it results in fun for your group, than it's the 'right' way to play regardless of where it is on the role-roll continuum.

[Sir_Psycho]

I am primarily interested in context and the relationships between characters and their radical sixth world. However, the dice mechanic adds much-needed chaos, and allows me to roleplay situations that are unexpected, and I can play them as such. In a way it is chance that breathes life into predefined roles.

[Method]

Whenever the "roll vs. role" topic pops up I tend think there is some sample bias at work. If you just casually peruse these forums you'd think SR fans are a bunch of number-crunching rules-Nazis that like nothing better than to bitch about the minutia of a new book and its far reaching implications for the future of the SR universe. But then you need to consider that:

1.) many people spend their time here because they love SR but don't have a group to play with- these types spend a great deal of time reading and rereading rules, generating characters and analyzing mechanics

and

2.) Its a discussion forum. Threads about character concepts and background stories are usually pleasant and short-lived because its easy to find common ground on a cool character or a good story. The threads that really thrash and bleed are the number crunching threads because in many ways there is more to discuss. Its the main reason why many people come here- to compare character builds, get objective feedback or analyze how one rule affects others.

[Wounded Ronin]

I tend to be pre-occupied with historical origins and details. As such, I enjoy pretending it's the 70s and that my character just dropped dead for failing a "Save Vs. Death Ray" roll.

[Cain]

You don't have to gimp characters to "roleplay" them. Some of my best roleplay experiences in Shadowrun involved a troll who could shrug off full-auto blasts from a machine gun. I do not understand where people get off claiming that you need to cripple a character in order for it to be roleplay-worthy. In fact, I've seen this sort of thing lead to outright cheating in LARPs.

"Story" characters and "Power" characters are not polar opposites.

[toturi]

You don't have to gimp characters to "roleplay" them. Some of my best roleplay experiences in Shadowrun involved a troll who could shrug off full-auto blasts from a machine gun. I do not understand where people get off claiming that you need to cripple a character in order for it to be roleplay-worthy. In fact, I've seen this sort of thing lead to outright cheating in LARPs.

"Story" characters and "Power" characters are not polar opposites.

True, and "Story" and "Power" are not mutually exclusive too, despite what some people(even good RPG developers) may think.

[Degausser]

There is something on the WoTC boards called the "Stormwrack" fallacy, or something along those lines, where the idea is that an 'optimized' (read, munchkined) character can also be roleplayed well. The problem that these power characters create is that it forces the rest of the team to be as super-munchkined as the one munchkin, or be useless and tossed aside. And some players don't have the innate munchkining ability or drive.

But that is not the issue here, the issue is role vs. roll.

And to that effect, I am in the camp that story is paramount, but you have to have a good system to support it. If you SAY that you can't cast spells all day long because of story reasons, then the rules better back that up or you've got nothin'. If you are trying to support sneaky-sneaky tip toe, don't-piss-off-the-guards-or-they-kill-you mentality, then you'd better not have a system that lets you eat lead for breakfast.

[Bastard]

I don't see the point of discussion here. It is so simple. It is always:

33% Roll
33% Role
and
34% Rules and Argument of

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

[Tyro]

You don't have to gimp characters to "roleplay" them. Some of my best roleplay experiences in Shadowrun involved a troll who could shrug off full-auto blasts from a machine gun. I do not understand where people get off claiming that you need to cripple a character in order for it to be roleplay-worthy. In fact, I've seen this sort of thing lead to outright cheating in LARPs.

"Story" characters and "Power" characters are not polar opposites.

On the D&D boards it's called the Stormwind Fallacy. The poster who originally proposed it, Tempest Stormwind, put it very well, and it applies to any roleplaying game. I highly recommend the read.

[Bastard]

I think some players feel "gimped" or "crippled" characters are better for 'role' play because it is easy to focus their characteristics by some sort of flaw. It's easy for them to see that negativity and use that as their basis for their character, while a number-crunched 'roll' play character may have to spend a lot more thought for their characteristics/role play outside of game penalties.

However, one of my favorite characters is one a friend of mine plays as a deaf sniper. I don't think this makes him a better role player/character. It is the fact that he ignores everyone unless they speak directly at him (his PC) so he can read their lips, and he talks like an ass the whole game.

I love the idea of a character learning their magic in game. To me, I enjoy flaws that my character has to overcome outside the actual mission. Not because I believe munchkins cannot be role played, but for the fact I think the most fun in games comes when you are pinned down, screwed, done for, but somehow come out of it. I love the "Oh Shit! Factor" that crippled characters sometimes have, outside of the GM screwing the player, or a real difficult mission, i.e. Gremlins Flaw (fun!).

These less then perfect characters also give some good variety, besides one or two cyberware parts flopped out and some skills switched around. Of course, when everyone starts taking the same flaws, it gets retarded. ("Not everyone has Cat Allergy, Fear of Large Bodies of Water, Amnesia and a Dark Secret, God Dammit!"- Me yelling at my players.)

It is easy to see role playing when the character has an obvious flaw. It is something the player HAS to cope with, while someone without such an obvious flaw has much more subtle acting to do. This is where I think the assumption that munchkins are not good for role play comes from.

[Method]

LINK

[Glyph]

As far as the game itself is concerned, the roleplaying and the rules are both vital components.

As far as the so-called "roleplaying vs. rollplaying" debate, it's bogus, because it's NOT one or the other. You can have munchkins who don't know the rules, and you can have theater majors who can powergame with the best of them. Creating effective characters and roleplaying well-rounded characters are separate skills - just because you have one and lack the other, don't assume that everyone else is in the same boat.

As far as "The min-maxer makes everyone have to min-max, or be left behind" goes, the opposite holds true, as well. So why should the min-maxer have to gimp a perfectly good character, just because Robbie wanted to play someone with 3 points of near-useless 'ware and the latent awakening quality?

I think you can avoid the worst power disparities by having the GM let everyone know what kind of campaign it is - I mean not just saying "320 BP, skills capped at one 5 or 2 4's and the rest at 3, resources capped at 30 and Magic/Resonance capped at 3". I mean also saying "You guys are neophyte runners, but street tough, near the top of the heap in the Barrens, but itching to move up the food chain." In such a campaign, the latent awakened mage would be a bad idea.

On the other hand, a campaign with the same numbers could be presented as "You are all graduate students at a local community college, with part-time jobs, with skills that could be useful for a runner to have, but no experience in the shadows before the event that will start the campaign." In that campaign, the guy with wired reflexes II, a smartlink, and an Ares Alpha would be the one that wouldn't fit.

The GM should give those kind of general guidelines, and then, if someone wants to intentionally gimp their character, they should suck it up and deal with the disadvantages. You don't want to be overshadowed by the other runners? Why the hell did you deliberately make a weak character, then? I have gimped characters for roleplaying fun, myself, but I didn't expect to be cut any special breaks for it. If I gave myself a hindrance, I expected it to actually be a genuine hindrance.

[ElFenrir]

I always put 'munchkins' in the group of 'anyone who disrupts the game and takes away the fun of other people.'

This includes rampant cheaty/powergamers(not someone who likes to make a kickass character. Cheaters are a whole other game), OR those 'overactors' who snub anyone who dare play a character who is useful for something, as only gimped characters can have character...I call these 'drama munchkins.' Both are people who I dislike at my table.

Currently our table has some very competent people-750 Karma, our houserules that make getting items easier, and the like. But every one of these guys is fun to play and comes in handy. Three of us are great at combat; one fellow handles the heavier weapons as well as pistols and is hella mean with a knife in his hand, my guy is the unarmed/close-in specialist who also is solid with small arms, another is very scrappy in a fistfight as well as awesome with his monowhip. THe fourth is a medic-he's not too combatant, but he's also our getaway driver and has a lot of other good skills. We are all about the same power level and all have managed to do things well, we also have backup things(the first guy acts as a good side-face and has disguise skills, the private eye fellow has an array of adept powers from killing hands to Sense Memory and Astral Perception and is stealthy with an array of contacts, my fellow is stealthy, good at tailing, and an excellent armorer.)

In other words, we're powerful, but on the same level in our own way. I don't expect our medic to be able to out-fight the other three. It's not the role he chose or even wanted-he wanted to play the support guy. We have fun playing off of each other and the like.

BUT i see the point of the discussion. If half the table wants to play pros and the other half gangers, there can be a problem. But...who 'wins' there? If the people who want to play the pros are forced down, and aren't in the mood(I can play a wide range of power levels, but it really depends on my mood, for instance), then they might not have fun, even with roleplaying. Same for the other side. It's why it's important to determine things like that at the start.

I like a nice mix. I like to throw dice around and watch my guy kick someone in the head for twice the guy's physical damage overflow in one shot. But sometimes I also like to sit there and simply talk with the other players, in character, about happenings around. Sitting around tossing back whiskey, seeing other character's points of view, and the like. We had a great game this weekend. My character has a charge-the 10 year old son of his old buddy when he served as a solider(the buddy passed away and my character took him in two years past, Dependent Level 2 flaw), and it's fun to watch him interact with the kid(played by the GM.) The crew pulled off a near perfect run the other night, too; no casualties, the worst that happened were four guards rendered unconscious via a flash-bang from my character and gel rounds from the other two guys, and one guard tied up.

In any case, I like to roll the dice, and I like to roleplay it out. I like a variety of power levels. I mainly like the ability to play the character I have in my head at the moment.

But I don't agree with extremes-''a character must have 20+ dice to be effective'' or ''a character must be saddled with flaws and not good at anything'' both don't gel with me.

[TheOOB]

I personally dislike the term "rollplay", it's a catch-all term used to over simplify things so you don't have to argue a point. Like "munchkin", "Min-Maxer" and "Power-Gamer".

Anyways, balancing fluff and crunch in a game is important. The rules act as sort of a neutral arbitrator, and the dice as random X factor that keeps the stories interesting. Games need rules, there are what make things fun and challenging, and they create more creativity pure freedom could ever create. PnP RPGs have a GM not to ignore rules, but to make the rules adaptable, so that no matter what the players try, there is an outcome.

One thing I think is important is that rules and roleplay are not mutually exclusive. They can work together. We ourselves operate in a world of rules, we know what we can and cannot do. If we jump off a building, we fall, it we touch a stove, we get burned. RPG's are no different, they just follow a different rule set. The characters may not know how the rules work, but they know what works and what doesn't work. How much you care about the rules doesn't determine how good of a role player you are, in fact people who ignore the rules and game mechanics tend to make crappy characters.

For example, in a D&D campaign I played a few years ago we had a large party, but two people stood out. One was a half-orc drunken boxer. He was an expertly made character, every feat, every magic item choosen with absolute precision to make him as tough as possible. He could jump into a group of enemies and beat them to death with the corpses of the ones he already killed. We all loved him, not just because he was powerful, but because he was a great character. He always had a good joke, keep my character from getting too evil, and had something positive to add to every situation.

On the other hand we had a fighter with a 8 constitution and a 12 strength(for reference, think melee street samurai with 1 body and 3 strength and agility). They had pages of backstory about how they where a sickly child and how they fought all kinds of difficulties in their life. Their character build also sucked horribly, the character was a fighter, but was incompetent at fighting, instead focusing on social skills. When asked why they didn't play a more social class they replied that it didn't make sense for the character. Anyways, apart from being useless, the character was was downright annoying to be around. There where a good actor to be sure, and their backround was interesting, but everything they did and said wasn't supported by their character(they didn't have the perform skill but claimed to be a magnificent dancer), and everytime they god their rear handed to them in a fight we can to consider how they became an adventurer in the first place. Basically, your...munchkinhood, has nothing to do with RP ability.

Another thing I should bring up is that different systems have different amounts of rules intensities. Shadowrun is very high on the crunch scale, with few systems(aside from D&D) being higher. On the other end, something like 7th Sea and Paranoia is on the fluff in, rules are light, flexible, and made to be ignored when needed. Some systems, like world of darkness, are in between. Shadowrun is a rules heavy system, if you want to keep the feel of the game you have to be picky on where you ignore the rules.

One last thing is that rules are discussed heavily on this board because that's all we have in common. Ever group is different, but the core rulebook is something we all have in common.

[Cain]

This includes rampant cheaty/powergamers(not someone who likes to make a kickass character. Cheaters are a whole other game), OR those 'overactors' who snub anyone who dare play a character who is useful for something, as only gimped characters can have character...I call these 'drama munchkins.'

I prefer the term Drama Queen. You can be a drama queen without being a disruptive munchkin, although usually the drama queen is more disruptive than the traditional munchkin.

[toturi]

I prefer the term Drama Queen. You can be a drama queen without being a disruptive munchkin, although usually the drama queen is more disruptive than the traditional munchkin.

That is my experience too. The munchkin usually gives the GM headaches but rarely intrudes into what the other players' space. The munchkin in my experience has more of a Me vs GM attitude.

The drama queen on the other hand justifies her actions with, "But that's what my character would do..." when casting Mind Control on another PC. The drama queen is all "Me, me, me!"

[Method]

And then of coarse you have the Dramakin Munchqueen- an evil amalgamation of the two that ruins the game for everyone. I have certainly had the un-pleasure of dealing with such players.

[Dream79]

That is my experience too. The munchkin usually gives the GM headaches but rarely intrudes into what the other players' space. The munchkin in my experience has more of a Me vs GM attitude.

The drama queen on the other hand justifies her actions with, "But that's what my character would do..." when casting Mind Control on another PC. The drama queen is all "Me, me, me!"

I think the DMG 2 for D&D 3.5 called them psychodramatist in it's description of player types and styles. I have to give huge props to whoever wrote that section since it was the most complete and unbiased assessment of play style I've ever read. Anyway, I'm in full agreement. There's nothing more disruptive then a psychodramatist that has a horrid tendency IMO to play idealized versions of there own ego and self concept regardless of how unrealistic or disruptive this may be.

I have seen many times where such a player will justify there actions because it's "what my character would do..." even if it means screwing over the group and even a campaign. It's stuff like is when you're playing something in the horror genre and the player insists vehemently that there character would never suffer from fear or psychological collapse because it's not in there character. The worst incident I can think of is when a player who's character was the 'rebel' he wanted himself to be refused to surrender his weapon to a town militia in Twilight 2000 nearly getting the entire party killed in a trivial encounter because his characters rebellious ego fully out weighed any concept of self preservation, ethics or morality.