[X] My Assistant

[Udoshi]

Those are mostly bad rules, because there is no such thing as "good" roleplaying, at least there are no criteria to measure this by. (Yes, most roleplaying rules in SR4 are very poor, because they are entirely tacked on to the mechanical construct, with simple requirements, but no definitions or explanations.)

I have to admit, you nearly lost me here. I was incredibly tempted to link a certain lovejournal community called Bad Roleplayers Suck, because there certainly ARE good and bad roleplayers out there.

Most diceless games I played had one basic rule: NOONE can affect your character without your permission. Not even the GM. I would never play a game where the GM can affect my character as he likes. He has to convince me that what he has envisioned is what should be happening. Unlike what you may think, this rarely resulted in total anarchy. However, as I said before, especially PC vs PC were a big problem.

I have played in a setting where this is the norm, and it actaully works out fantastically. It has a lot to do with the setting in question - because its a multi-gm environment, where anyone can basically run something within the loose guidelines of the settings. Social factors have made it incredibly cliquey (people tend to play with people they get along with) but the idea of consenting changes to a character being a basic rule does a lot to get players into a more detail-oriented style of play where they think about what is going on and react appropriately instead of Rollplaying all the time.
That being said, some players are better than others at playing realistically, especially in a fantasy setting.

[Brainpiercing7.6...]

I have to admit, you nearly lost me here. I was incredibly tempted to link a certain lovejournal community called Bad Roleplayers Suck, because there certainly ARE good and bad roleplayers out there.

Oh, there certainly are, but you are still going to have to give some criteria what makes a good and what makes a bad roleplayer. You can't just write in a rulebook "Reward good roleplaying", because that is just an empty, meaningless statement.

I have played in a setting where this is the norm, and it actaully works out fantastically. It has a lot to do with the setting in question - because its a multi-gm environment, where anyone can basically run something within the loose guidelines of the settings. Social factors have made it incredibly cliquey (people tend to play with people they get along with) but the idea of consenting changes to a character being a basic rule does a lot to get players into a more detail-oriented style of play where they think about what is going on and react appropriately instead of Rollplaying all the time.
That being said, some players are better than others at playing realistically, especially in a fantasy setting.

In a multi-GM, non-PvP environment I have had very rewarding experiences, and have myself probably done the best roleplaying I've ever done. (This was of course play by post, so you have more time to get into the character).

[Yerameyahu]

I don't see the problem. The GM knows good roleplaying, and rewards it.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I don't see the problem. The GM knows good roleplaying, and rewards it.

Indeed... Kind of like that Supreme Court Judge and his definition of Pornography. You know it when you see it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Yerameyahu]

Yes, except much less ambiguous. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) The players also know good roleplaying. It would be unreasonable to provide a definition, and 'good roleplaying' is far from meaningless. If pressed, we could all certainly come up with a list/definition, but why?

[DamienKnight]

Yes, except much less ambiguous. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) The players also know good roleplaying. It would be unreasonable to provide a definition, and 'good roleplaying' is far from meaningless. If pressed, we could all certainly come up with a list/definition, but why?

Yes, for shame that we would expect a book that outlines how to play a ROLE PLAYING game would try and define Role Playing.

[Yerameyahu]

It does have a whole section explaining what an RPG is. And again, we all know. It's hardly "empty, meaningless", nor is there "no such thing as 'good' roleplaying".

[Brainpiercing7.6...]

It does have a whole section explaining what an RPG is. And again, we all know. It's hardly "empty, meaningless", nor is there "no such thing as 'good' roleplaying".

Ok, you seriously haven't experienced enough bad GMs. If you had, you would know that there DOES need to be a definition. GMs that tell you how to play your character, for instance. That's NOT his business. Or GMs that always reward the table clown, because "oh, when his character does these crazy things that shouldn't work, it's funny and whacked, but if YOU DO, IT EVIL POWERGAMER, it totally won't fly AT ALL!" Or GMs that are biased towards a certain type of roleplaying. Or GMs that don't stand up to the table "actor", who can therefore hog ALL the fricken spotlight simply because he's a bit more outgoing than the rest. And yes, that guy might be totally playing his character well, but that's still not how things should work.

So, against all these things you DO definitely need definitions, and even better, rules. If there were, then everything would be natural and fair. And it's a damn shame that roleplaying games that are sold for hundreds of dollars provide SO LITTLE gaming/roleplaying theory. Fact is, they didn't even want to bother with it. And arguably you can say, hey, it's a thing that every gaming table should work out for themselves. But factually, you should then not mix rules and roleplaying at all.

And the GM is just a player, with admittedly more work. He isn't supposed to be the judge (in a well-designed game, which doesn't have roleplaying as a tacked on feature to a bunch of mechanics).

[Yerameyahu]

Sounds like they need a section explaining what a good GM is, then. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) I don't really see the relevance, though. You're saying that they need to spell out what good roleplaying is for the benefit of *crap* GMs? You're already screwed with a crap GM, regardless of any other factors.

Honestly, there don't need to be rewards for roleplaying, XP or otherwise. I agree.

On the other hand, see *my* Rule 0 above. There are players who play their characters wrong. Etc. The group can deal with it, naturally, and I don't think XP incentives are effective or desirable, but I understand why that 'rule' is there.

[Jhaiisiin]

Ok, but that still boxes me into the characterization I came up with in 5-30 minutes while writing up the character synopsis. So what about growth? Also, I haven't had a single character yet that hasn't significantly changed in personality in play - simply because he wasn't quite hashed out, and he reacted to the stimuli present.

Brain, I never said you would be boxed in to a specific characterization. Wow, you really have had some shitty GM's to make you automatically jump to that conclusion. Your character should evolve over time. Hell, it's practically required in our games. We play some oWoD games, and you can't even advance unless your character grows (in our games anyway... in Mage we tie Arete advances to character growth, no amount of xp can raise it).

However, if you go from "Happy perky Sunny-Ork" to "evicerating a random bystander" in the same 5 minute span with no justifiable reason, you're not gonna be considered good roleplaying. Same in reverse: If you're a trigger-happy monster, suddenly giving a person a kind smile and a sucker is going to be very out of character.

Growth of a character generally happens slowly over time, just like with people. Also, just like with people, a major event, trauma, or revelation can spark a sudden and radical shift in a character's outlook and belief system. Reacting to the events in the game in a believable manner is the core of "good" roleplaying. Staying true to what the character is, letting that truth evolve, and keeping things as real as possible.

[Blitz66]

Yeah, consistency of character isn't really stasis, but a moving average. If you're way off your center mark, you're out of character. If you're reasonably close, but often erring to one side, your average is slowly shifting. Trauma or other major events, like Jhaiisiin mentions, will cause introspection and can shift it substantially. So your initial concept is never immutable.

[suoq]

One thing I always liked about Grimjack (yeah, I'm old). Every story brought growth in two directions. We learned what happened to him in the story and how it changed him and we learned what happened to him in the past and how that made him the person he became.

I have no problem with a character's backstory growing in the course of play, just as the things he encounters will also cause growth and changes.

[Brainpiercing7.6...]

Brain, I never said you would be boxed in to a specific characterization. Wow, you really have had some shitty GM's to make you automatically jump to that conclusion. Your character should evolve over time. Hell, it's practically required in our games. We play some oWoD games, and you can't even advance unless your character grows (in our games anyway... in Mage we tie Arete advances to character growth, no amount of xp can raise it).

Hah, I am positively scorched with bad GMing!

The damnedest thing is that usually I played my best characters with the worst GMs. Usually because they made their lives so unbelievably hard that I myself had to fight every inch of the way.

However, if you go from "Happy perky Sunny-Ork" to "evicerating a random bystander" in the same 5 minute span with no justifiable reason, you're not gonna be considered good roleplaying. Same in reverse: If you're a trigger-happy monster, suddenly giving a person a kind smile and a sucker is going to be very out of character.

Hmmm... I don't find randomness to be necessarily conclusive of bad roleplaying. Destructive, usually, but... hey, you just forgot to mention that personality disorder in the backstory. Both consistently random and inconsistently random have a place.

Fact is, I don't like having to summarize a personality before play. Hell, I don't even know the guy I'm going to be playing, yet. Who knows what he'll do? I'll keep a rough image/outline to myself, but the rest of the table, including the GM (and maybe me), is just going to have to find out.

Growth of a character generally happens slowly over time, just like with people. Also, just like with people, a major event, trauma, or revelation can spark a sudden and radical shift in a character's outlook and belief system. Reacting to the events in the game in a believable manner is the core of "good" roleplaying. Staying true to what the character is, letting that truth evolve, and keeping things as real as possible.

I think as a player I should have the choice of how, when, and how quickly to grow, or change. I don't need reasons, either, because mechanical psychology does not a good character make. People usually are quite different from what we want them to be, so realism isn't necessarily a goal. Now I'll grant you that generally the kind of people you have in mind probably won't have even thought about this much, but... I just want to keep the theoretical possibility open. Because it's MY character, and I can play him like I want to. He can snap without a reason, he can do stupid, inconsistent things, and I don't have to justify that in the least. I generally will find an explanation for myself, but that, too, is mine alone, because only I can look into that character's head.

IMHO, bad roleplaying just mostly happens when people metagame their decisions to get the most of certain mechanics, without thinking enough about believable reasons. But then believable is a very relative term again.

[CanRay]

Humans are one of the most powerful groups in the game universe!

Especially when they got all their buddies together and put on the white robes and pointy hoods. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Rubic]

Humans are one of the most powerful groups in the game universe!

Especially when they got all their buddies together and put on the white robes and pointy hoods. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

You mean the druids? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[CanRay]

The midgets that almost crushed Stonehenge at the Spinal Tap concert?

[Cain]

Brain, I think you're kinda missing the point.

First of all: Yes, bad GM's exist, we all know that. Hell, back in the 80's, I was one of the worst. I didn't really come along until Shadowrun first came out. Not coincidentally, that's when I learned how to roleplay.

Second, if you as the player are deciding what the character is doing, something is amiss. When you're truly into roleplaying, the *character* will start making decisions and you'll be along for the ride. This doesn't happen automatically, as other people have attested, but characters do grow and evolve over time. It's happened to me many times: I as the player will say my character is doing something, while my mind is going: "What the hell? Where did that come from?"

Now, no one has the right to force your character to grow or develop. I really don't like the idea that you could be judged or ranked or advanced based on that, because many of a character's changes are internal. That's why I'd never play in the oWoD game previously mentioned. But if you're truly into your character, he should grow on his own.

[KCKitsune]

Humans are one of the most powerful groups in the game universe!

Especially when they got all their buddies together and put on the white robes and pointy hoods. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Not a cool comparison. There's plenty of assholes in EVERY race. Just because the KKK is the most famous doesn't make them unique.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Not a cool comparison. There's plenty of assholes in EVERY race. Just because the KKK is the most famous doesn't make them unique.

Quoted For Truth... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif)

[Mäx]

Not a cool comparison. There's plenty of assholes in EVERY race. Just because the KKK is the most famous doesn't make them unique.

Nothing unique, but Humanity Policlub is the most powerfull organization of it's kind in the sixth world.

[Medicineman]

.....oO(the KKK ain't the most famous.....there's this Bunch with the "upside-Down buddhist Sign of Life"....I think They're even more famous....)

with a "not-so-famous" Dance
Medicineman

[KCKitsune]

.....oO(the KKK ain't the most famous.....there's this Bunch with the "upside-Down buddhist Sign of Life"....I think They're even more famous....)

with a "not-so-famous" Dance
Medicineman

Yeah, the Nazi's are more famous, but still the KKK are evil enough that if they could pull a Hitler, they would do it in a heart beat.

[Blitz66]

Yeah, the Nazi's are more famous, but still the KKK are evil enough that if they could pull a Hitler, they would do it in a heart beat.

And yet, Westboro Baptist Church is nasty enough to be denounced as evil by the KKK. To say nothing of other supremacist organizations of every race and nearly every religion under the sun, each just about as vile as the others.

[KarmaInferno]

Can we not go down the "X real-life thingy is more famous/evil than Y" path?

It never ends well. Ever.




-k

[Critias]

Can we not go down the "X real-life thingy is more famous/evil than Y" path?

It never ends well. Ever.




-k

Unless you count "getting a thread locked for talking about politics" as "ending well."