Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Role-playing vs roll-playing
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
Shadow
I here this all the time. It drives me crazy. This is an issue that has multiple layers and I feel because I like both (and not to much of either) somehow I am a bad gamer becaue I like to follow the rules, roll the dice and play the game, somehow I am not a *true* gamer. So I would like to hear the communities thoughs on this, maybe I will find I am not alone, or maybe I will here some new ideas beyond,

"Try role-playing, not roll-playing".
Glyph
I agree that a lot of so-called "role-players" can come off as elitist and condenscending. To me, designing a character who can be effective in their specialty is half of the fun. With such a character, I can both roleplay (something overlooked by munchkins) and be successful in things like shooting people and breaking into places. Because that's what the premise of the game is - playing a tough professional criminal/rebel type. So-called roleplayers often gimp their characters, then whine how the rules get in the way when their character gets gunned down by the first punk with a Streetline Special. I like the rules, myself. I don't play to have the GM tell me a story - and without rules to arbitrate things like combat and add a genuine random element to the game, that's all it is.

Actually, I think some moderate min-maxing helps roleplaying. I start out with a concept and flesh it out as I spend points, often changing things around as the concept evolves. My characters wind up being good at what they do, but with every skill and Attribute accounted for in their backgrounds. People who write a novel and then try to make a character, by contrast, often find out that what they have in mind doesn't quite "fit" the generation system, and they end up having to make a lot of compromises.
Daishi
I'm working a bit more on making my characters more memorable and more fleshed out, but I honestly think our crew is more interested in problem-solving, and tactical operations that character development. At least, that's true for me. So characters are often strongly viewed in terms of their capacities. Which inevitably leads to lots of die rolling.

(But I think the dirty little secret of ShadowRun's popularity around here is that it allows to roll lots and lots of dice. And that just feels cool.)
Kagetenshi
I use both, but I typically end up calling for relatively few rolls of the dice (except Perception, which is used right and left) unless the dramatics of the situation call for it.

~J
Sunday_Gamer
The problem is with the definition.

Where I'm from, a roll-player is someone who would play shadowrun like it as monopoly. No interest in playing out scenes with NPC or other PCs, seeking only the next excuse to roll as many dice as possible.
A roll-player's character never has any depth, they are two dimensional cardboard cutouts, in fact, they might as well be "the shoe" or "the car", it's all the same to them.

A roleplayer, again, where I'm from, is someone who actually plays the game for the story, obviously his character is an intrinsic part of the story, but the player actually tries to think and act as his CHARACTER would.

At NO point and time is a role player adverse to rolling dice, I mean, that's how you figure out if things go down the way you want them to, granted we also don't bog ourselves down in useless dice rolling, if my character drives to the store, the GM isn't interested in my driving roll, it doesn't serve the story, so we skip it and assume I drive my dumb ass to the store.

I am unfamiliar with the concept of a role-player refusing to use his dice, granted, I HAVE played entire game sessions without anyone needing their dice, but that just "happened", no one planned it that way.

Just my 2 nuyen.gif

Sunday
Polaris
Sunday Gamer,

Then you have not had the misfortune to play with a bunch of hardcore Vampire TM players or (worse) hardcore Amber players. It think between the two of them, they have the lock on "role"playing pretension....as in if you aren't an aspiring Shakesperean actor then you shouldn't soil their beloved hobby with your uncouth presence or your despicable dice or capable characters.

I hate that attitude. There is no reason you can't be min-maxed for what you do and still have a cool, complex, and believable background and persona. Actually I find that the so-called "real" roleplayers complain *more* in the presence of a fleshed out interesting persona who happens to be min-maxed because most of them couldn't parse a rule-book if it hit them in the head....and having a character that is good in combat situations *and* is wonderfully done is anethema to them.

Of course YMMV.

-Polaris
Shadow
I bring this up because a few years ago I was at a game and the party insisted on role-playing out this bonfire. Now before I hear "if everyone is having a good time", I want you to know I wasn't. For two hours they "Role played" foraging for wood, trying to start the fire, how to cook the food. We were supposed to be on our way to warn a city that mass danger in was coming behind us. When I voiced my concern, I got stuck with, "It's role-playing, not roll playing". And I was all, wtf? Needless to say I quit that campaign.

I have found this attitude more and more prevalent. A damn near unwillingness to roll dice for anything. And a attitude that if you get into combat you’ve done something wrong. It's nice to see some people out there understand where I'm coming form.

Now I need each and every one of your addresses so I can mover there and play in a decent game.



Sphynx
You know, the wording on the poll pretty much assured only the last 2 choices would be chosen.

Regardless, personally I'm with Glyph on this one. I once did an analysis with some friends on the 'evolutionary steps of roleplaying' and discovered that there are 4 basic steps that are taken in direct order.. goes something like this:

Newbie: Cool game, when do I get to do X or Y? Character growth becomes important as you have 'goals' to achieve, the whole accent thing and being 'in-character' is still too dorky.

Style: It would be Very cool if I combined this and that! You start doing things to make your character cool, min-maxxing becomes an art. You realize you don't need X so much, so save points here and increase Y. Spend any spare points on 'style'.

Role: I don't need dice, I can honestly roleplay my way through any situation. Yep, we ALL hit that pretentious moment in the evolutionary stage (even I have... sadly). wink.gif Not needing X has become not needing Y either. This is actually good roleplaying, but has a fatal flaw. Without rolling dice, you're not playing your character which has weaknesses other than your own, you're playing yourself as if you were the character and all your character's attributes and skills become directly correlated to how charismatic/convincing you are as a player.

Enlightened: Lastly, we end up hitting the stage where numbers, dice and 'role' are all as important. A point where you realize that even though you can talk in a strange accent, without the randomness of dice, you're just assuming what your character can do instead of finding out. More importantly, a stage where you remember that you forgot how fun it was to put the "roll" in "roleplay".

Anyhows, it was research done on our own groups where I lived, so may not be accurate with all the world, but we had this tendency to watch people and put them in one of the 4 categories, sounding all pretenscious as if we had this understanding far beyond them. But despite that, it's stayed fairly accurate as I've moved about and watched other groups. Taking the "roll" out of "roleplay" isn't a bad thing, it's highly evolved actually. But assuming that not having a "roll" in "roleplay" is ignoring, what I feel to be, the next step.

I spend my years thinking I didn't need no damn character sheet, tell me the job and I'll get in/out without anyone the wiser and not roll a single dice in the process. Now instead, I grab my bag of 30 dice and while shouting at the top of my lungs "Take this you fraggin %^$!#^" roll the whole damn bag at whatever was dumb enough to mistake me for some simple conjurer of parley tricks. wink.gif

Sphynx
Jpwoo
I think that people tend to come to the games that best fit with their style or playing. So most people here are going to be hybrid role/roll players as shadowrun rewards boths almost equally.

The world is open enough that you need to be able to role play even a little as there normally isn't a linear path that you can 'roll' along.

The combat system and other 'guts' of the game reward tactical and strategic play in a way that 'role' playing cannot fully cover.

I hope this doesn't make us Rolle players.
Drain Brain
Although some might say I'm "that condescending guy" who espouses ROLE playing etc etc, I can't deny a certain amount of glee at number crunching and min-maxing.

May be the fact that my forefathers were all union men, but I love making the rules work to my advantage...

So yeah I'm a bit of both.

Take Flip, the character I'm playing over in the PBP boards - He's a kick ass close combatant Physad. Unfortunately he's naive, can't shoot for shit and has a soft spot for what he thinks are "innocents." That said, he's like a typical teenage boy in that he's obsessed with gadgetry and weaponry.

So yeah - Good specialist, great for ROLL playing in his element, but also a 100% fun ROLE playing experience.

THAT is the important bit - fun. Whichever way you do things, have fun.


Laughlyn
At one end of the spectrum you end up with something like Fallout Tactics BOS, almost no rollplaying and all combat/dice rolling (in the case of the game just a skill check by the computer). At the other end of the spectrum you have people come up with:

"My character Mojo Ho Ho worked at Ares for 10 before leaving one night because he found out they did some evil human testing. As I left I talked to a few friends and was able to convince them that I'd never come back and I needed a Barrett 121, 200 rounds of ammo for it, a full platinum cred stick and a T-Bird…which I was just able to fly because I'm pretty smart. Then I spent 3 months practicing how to fly and how to shoot my new Barrett 121"

Suffice it to say, no way in hell. There has to be a happy medium or else I'd stick with tactical combat games that are far more realistic than Shadowrun.
Lin Hayati
Heya all! I'm the big n00b who voted "Who needs talking, I let my bag of 30 dice speak for me!" That, however, is because in the campaign I'm currently in, I play a character who speaks softly and carries a BIG stick and can roll 23 dice to attack with it. Role-playing is less painfully difficult when you're playing the silent type.
last_of_the_great_mikeys
Well, this arguement is much better done after reading some Knights of the Dinner Table strips. Here's a batch for ya to read, then come back here and argue role vs. roll!
Siege
I think swinging to either extreme is bad.

The bonfire was amusing, as was one of my former GM's insisting on "role-playing" my character's buying of a belt-buckle. I surrendered when he started going on about the weather.

Roll-players (to my mind) are the ones who exist only to create extreme characters without providing some form of context in the element of the game.

Example: The tank-troll that never parts with his mini-gun, ammo hopper and mil-spec armor.

Which is fine if you're playing a session of Desert Wars, but in the context of "sneaky, shadowy thieves slinking through the cracks of Corporate plasti-steel", it doesn't really follow.

The other extreme of roll-player -- the afore-mentioned player of the Tank Troll is upset when the GM rules, "well...nobody wants to talk to you and the bartender just ran out the back screaming."

Tank Player: "Well, there's nothing in the rules about my being scary! That's not fair!"

Suffering GM: "..."

Suffering GM: "..."

Suffering GM: "You're still wearing the mil-spec armor, the ammo hopper and the mini-gun on full whirrr, right?"

Tank Player: "Yeah, so?"

These same players will abuse the system, exploit loopholes and verge on becoming munchkins, having discarded common sense for the opportunity to live vicariously in the rule system.

Of course, the aspiring Shakespearean actor is just as bad and can be equally frustrating -- especially when you find yourself reaching for the chair as a blunt object.

-Siege
Cray74
QUOTE (Shadow)
I here this all the time. It drives me crazy. This is an issue that has multiple layers and I feel because I like both (and not to much of either) somehow I am a bad gamer becaue I like to follow the rules, roll the dice and play the game, somehow I am not a *true* gamer. So I would like to hear the communities thoughs on this, maybe I will find I am not alone, or maybe I will here some new ideas beyond,

"Try role-playing, not roll-playing".

I just separate roleplaying and rollplaying. In combat, I get my fill of rollplaying (and carnage). Elsewhere, I roleplay with occasional dice rolls - an etiquette check here, a computer check there.
Adarael
QUOTE
I agree that a lot of so-called "role-players" can come off as elitist and condenscending.


That's because for the most part, we are. I say we primarily because I consider myself more in the elitist and 'screw the technicalities of the rules, the story is what matters' category. Yes, Polaris, I *am* one of those Damn Dirty Vampire players. But! I also think Vampire, as a game, is what happens when you swing too far *away* from dice and having a working system. Lemmie explain what I mean...

Probably one of the most fun sessions I've had in Shadowrun was entirely centered around trying to figure out what the Council of Princes was up to, how Ehran and Harlequin were tied together, and why cyberzombies worried us so damn much. It was basically the 'figuring out huge chunks of plot' game. No dice rolled the entire game, no rules thrown in... just roleplay. I and my group are pretty darn good roleplayers, too; we're all rather theatrical types with a good grasp of the world. So when forced to deal with the cheeseball types who wouldn't know a story if it came up and bit them on the face, we tend to get rather dismissive and easily annoyed. Typically, really dice-heavy games make characters like the one Laughlyn described - less so story-inclined individuals. For example, if a player can't explain to me where their shadowrunner picked up all his shadowrunning type skills, I start to look really sidelong at them. Sure, it's shadowrun, and sure you're gonna need stealth, some weapons skills, and knowledge skills to tell you what the opposition is probably doing to counter you. But characters don't suddenly hatch whole with knowledge of 'Laser Weapons (Ares MP III): 5/7' in their skillset without a damn good reason. I figure if you can't explain why a character has their skills, you can't adequately explain how they became a runner.

I remember on Shadowrun: Detroit MUSH, 9/10ths of the population seemed to have absolutely no idea what playing Shadowrun meant. Sure, they knew Chicago had been blasted by the Cermak warhead, they knew not having a SIN meant they were without rights... but I saw trolls dealing weed and thinking they were 'hard', 'street samurai' that thought sticking an assault rifle under a secure long-coat made it invisible to Knight Errant patrols (and from an Int 8 Mercenary/Demolitions expert, trust me... They were horribly obvious), the belief that KE wouldn't investigate a city block being demolished by C-12 because it was a security E zone, and the winner of all time - a charisma 8 or 9 elven mage (who was a total 'i'm teh sexay!' bimbo) dropping a goddamn force 6 powerball on a group of people at her housewarming party - to knock their clothes off so things could get more intimate.

I mean, really. A force 6 powerball!?? Do these people even *read* the books?
THAT'S why I get arrogant about self-professed 'gamers, not snooty roleplayers'.
(And that's also not to say that White Wolf doesn't have its' share of idiots of that brand. Oh lord, I could go on about them for weeks...)

But Vampire's what happens when a company tries to *force* people to have games that are entirely like that, neh? They invent a rules system that's not just simple-minded, it's downright retarded. The probability scale is skewed horribly, luck matters almost as much as skill, and the combat system was specifically designed to confound and annoy the players - and ensure a horrible level of equally-distributed lethality - so that *players*, not characters, would avoid it like the plague. How many of you have actually seen a combat with 6-8 people in a White Wolf game? It's like watching a goddamn trainwreck, unless one side massively outclasses the other - except in Exalted, but that's another story.

Just explaining my position as a 'roleplayer'. But one who likes his dice, his combat pool, and his Shadowrun system that bloody well works.
John Campbell
By my definitions, using the dice does not make you a roll-player. Using the rules does not make you a roll-player. The rules and the dice are there to provide a framework within which you can role-play a character without getting into too many arguments with your fellow players and GM about objective reality. It's when you allow the numerical considerations to overcome your character's personality (if any) that you become a roll-player instead of a role-player.

If your PC is not a character, but just a list of stats, then you are a roll-player. If your decision process involves not, "What would my character do?" but, "What gives me the most pluses?" you are a roll-player. If your "background" is designed simply to justify getting the most pluses, you're not just a roll-player, you're a twink, too.

I'm a role-player. I'm elitist, too. It's hard not to be, because role-players are simply better than roll-players.
Polaris
Guys,

OK let me toss this back at you then. In the council of princes, did the character with a 3 ettiquette and the flaw: Incompetence Ettiquette schmooze and make the speak that won everyone over. Did the Trog with an Int of 2 come up with the brilliant deduction that solved the mystery.

See where I am going here? If you become too 'elitist' and throw the dice and rules away, then you are doing a piss poor job of roleplaying (really metagaming) at least as I see it. That is what tends to really torque me off with a lot of so-called "real" roleplayers....they aren't. They are roleplaying as little (and arguably less in many cases) than the inveterate dice junkie because they are letting their real world stats and personality determine how well their character's succeed. Either way it is still metagaming and still damaging to RPing.

I also resent an attitude prevelent in a lot of circles that says that "If you optimize your character, then you are by definition a bad roleplayer." That is flatly untrue yet I am hearing echoes of it here.

-Polaris
Sunday_Gamer
On White Wolf Games...

I play in a Mage campaign, run a Werewolf campaign and play in a Vampires campaign ( I know, between that and the SR game I play in and the one I run, you'd think I spend 24 hours a day gaming... but no, we rotate campaigns, it's not that bad really, I have a life... somewhere... I think it's behind the couch, lemme check...)

Let me tell you, NO ONE hates the White Wolf combat system more than I do. I fricken despise it, luckily, we work around it because the world is so damned rich. Our mage campaign is really a Call of cthullu game with mages as the heroes, our Vampire campaign is... well... messed up and a whole lot of crazy fun and the Werewolf game can be ripe with combat since the little buggers regenerate at absurd rates but yes, you're right, the White Wolf combat system sucks big donkey butt.

We however have a great time and do plenty of dice rolling in the process. Roll-players are not a product of the game, they are a product of the gamer.

Sunday
Ronin Soul
I tend to run my games more like a movie or story (as the players in my online run may be able to attest to). As a result mine are never particularly realistic to begin with. As a result I tend to take skills etc more as an indicator as opposed to "this is how good you are at something end of story". If a player describes an action well I give them bonuses and even may allow them to do the strictly impossible for the sake of telling a good, interesting story. (Yes I subscribe to the Feng Shui school of RPGing biggrin.gif )

I think that how a game is run to a certain extent reinforces how much roll-playing or role-playing takes part. In a strictly canon game you will have more roll-playing by necessity compared to a game which is more freeform (I've run a few sessions where no dice where rolled even though combat did occur. We based results on descriptions of actions etc.). By the same token the attitude of the players as well as the GM determines how much roll-playing/role-playing occurs. A game where the players and GM all work together to tell a great story and have fun will generally have more role-playing/less roll-playing than one where the players are out to "beat" the GM, where roll-playing will presumably be emphasised as a way of limiting players etc.
Note that I say generally. There are exceptions I am sure.
Just my nuyen.gif 0.02 on the subject.
Sphynx
QUOTE (Adarael)
For example, if a player can't explain to me where their shadowrunner picked up all his shadowrunning type skills, I start to look really sidelong at them.

That.... is what I consider to be the biggest problem amongst the "elite condescending roleplayer" types.

1) Help them with their background so it meshes with their skills. NOBODY is going to get upset about having a cool explanation why they have a skill. In my humble opinion, the player who doesn't help a person fit their background to their character, instead of giving them dirty looks, is the poor "role" player, not the one who made a fun character.

2) Who cares? You've reached a point where "realism" replaces "fun". If a new player wants a 5/7 MP III (which no min/maxxer would even do since that places too much dependancy on getting access to that kinda weapon), then let them. Since you obviously CAN develop a background for that kinda skill, what the hell does it matter if they have it? If the GM doesn't help them with a background to explain it, come up with your own for the little story in your head.

3) You are talking about newbies, those are not the actions of a "roll" player, those are actions of people who lack any experience. No "roll" player would ever use a Force 6 Powerball to remove clothing.... that's more the field of a "role" player (due to a lack of mechanics understanding), or a complete newbie.

4) "Role" players end up being a little short of useless when it IS time to use the dice, where as "Roll" players can start taking on a role anytime. Good numbers, good skill, good pools does not a non-role player make, you don't need numbers to be a good role player.

Sphynx
DR.PaiN
Whine whine whine.

My game is better than your game.

So the roll players have a fun time blowing up the arc.
The role players can have a fun time having a tea party with a Man of the Woods.
Great, now everyone is having fun so whats the problem?
Cain
Polaris-- I have seen it where the troll with Charisma 1 made the speech that won everyone over. It was roleplayed well, and the character not only believably had a low charisma, but succeded in spite of it. I'll refer you to Terry Pratchett's novels; Detrius's interrogation methods can be quite effective, and without resorting to blunt objects.

There is a balance to be found, between combining dice and character involvement. Too much min/maxing, and you end up with a cariacture instead of a character. Roll-players tend to produce cariactures, and think they're roleplaying. Drama queens will whinge on about how they don't need stats, but they tend to exaggerate certain characteristics as well, ending up with yet another cariacture. Either one can add "Elitist bastard" to their title, where they believe their method is the One True Way. Any gamer who believes that he or she's found the "One True Way" is also one incapable of playing anything but a cariacture.
Polaris
Cain,

I strongly disagree. Min-Maxing can lead to caraicture, but I think it is a mistake to say that it will always do so. In fact that very statement comes periously close to the elitism I was complaining about and sounds suspiciously like you too have found "the one true way" to roleplay yourself. Does that mean that you play caraictures?

The key about Min-Maxing is that you construct your person first including things he or she would like to be good at and things that would be reasonable in his or her background. Then you min-max to get the most effectiveness. I have said it before, and I will say it once more. In shadowrun (where your chummers lives are on the line) any player that does NOT min-max is doing not only himself but his fellows players a grave disservice....and I do mean grave in the literal sense.

The part about the Troll is precisely the thing I would never allow. If you have a one charisma then you really don't know how to please people. The best you can get is one sucess....and that has definate impliciations. Likewise, a character with an 8 etiquette and a 6 charisma is likely far more suave and debonaire than the player. It should be the character's skills and personalities that matter...not the players and too many so called "real" roleplayers forget this....which is sadly ironic because at that point they are no longer roleplaying.

-Polaris
Sphynx
Yeah Cain, a Charisma 1 -anything- isn't articulate enough to make any kinda speech that'd win someone over. Charisma 1 is the guy who talks too loud while sniffling and picking his nose. Maybe he's Intelligent enough to say all the right things, but it could NOT be said, no matter how intelligent the idea is, in a manner that is inspiring enough to win people over. That's poor roleplaying, IMHO.

Sphynx
Blackened25
I think many of the "elite condescending roleplayer types" are simply people who are very good at what they attempt do, which is quite simply roleplay. They enjoy games where each and every player is involved in serious interaction, all while remaining deeply within character. Personally, i find that these moments are the most memorable moments of game time that I've ever spent, more so to me then any combat. I and my group enjoy fully fleshing out our character regardless of what game or system we are playing. This is just how we get the most amount of fun out from roleplaying games, and how in my view they are to be played to get the maximum possible enjoyment out of it.
Do i, as a believer in roleplaying look down on those who simply go from combat to combat, with no concept of in-between? No, actually i feel somewhat sorry for them. Was that condescending? I just feel they could be getting so much more out of their game. The common response to this may well be "if they enjoy it the way it is now, why don't you just leave them alone?". Simply for this reason: They can be more. To not improve is to stagnate.
Heres a example of my mindset on this:
A beginning gamer is the equivalent of an A ball baseball player, in that he's young in his game, and has great potential. The player gradually moves up the ladder from AA to AAA ball, and in each stop learns more of the skills necessary to be proficient at his game. Both are out to have fun, but both should have the desire to get the most out of their talent as well. Now, the difference to me is making the jump from AAA to the Majors. Many gamers are unable to make this leap. They have all the talent and experience, but are just so locked into doing things in one way (constant combat, one dimensional characters, munchkinism), and fail to grasp the fact that combat, stats, and various toys they want their character to have exist only to serve as helpers to one concept: roleplaying. Without roleplaying, all these other elements simply fall apart, or become uninteresting. To succeed in the Majors of roleplaying, one should be able to do just that: roleplay. Shadowrun (and any other true rpg) are not about combat, though both games provide a system by which a person can simulate it. Neither game is about skill use, though both have a system to simulate them. It is only when all these parts are taken together, and added to inspired roleplaying does any system come alive to it's true potential. Remember, there really is a reason why shadowrun is called a role playing game, and not a combat simulation game.

Yes, have combats and have fun doing it. But don't enter into it simply to "be in combat", if you take my meaning. Sure, roll dice and follow the rules as they are meant to be played, but roleplaying should always be in the fore front, with the system serving to support it.
I think some individuals, who could qualify for the "elite condescending roleplayer type" award just simply see too many munchinkin-like gamers, too many no background characters, and too many senseless "for the hell of it" combats.
Roleplayers have very strong feelings about the types of games they play. I'm not different, and what you've just read are mine. Feel free to disagree, as i'm sure many will.
TinkerGnome
I have to agree with Cain to on this in some ways, but also the other point of view. I think two different things are being argued here. In the case of the troll who gives the rousing speech with only a Charisma of 1, it should still boil down to a die roll. He should get a hefty bonus to the roll for making a good in character speech, but he's still inherently not likable (which he can overcome via careful training, etc, which is representative of his skills).

The complaint appears to be based on a type of min-maxing I used to see in Legend of the Five Rings games all the times. A player who knows how to play a role and bilk the system spends all of his points in combat skills, etc, and relies on the fact that he can, as a player, role play his way through anything to get by in social situations (often doing so much better than players who spent all of their character points in social skills). The advice they suggested in L5R is the same advice I'd give here:

Roleplaying doesn't substitute for die rolls. It can give a hefty bonus to those rolls, but the dice themselves still determine success or failure. Mr. Troll might give the speech of his life (and the low charisma character doing so is one of the staples of many types of movies), but what it should come down to is a hefty bonus of some sort. He can still roll all ones.

Detritus achieves much the same with his interrogation. He racks up the bonuses by being 1) huge, 2) scary, 3) nigh on invulnerable, and 4) persistant. It doesn't matter if he only has the equivalent of interrogation 2, after a few hours of a Discworld troll's logic games, anyone starts to cave ("It was you what done it, wuzn't it?" "Wuz it you dat dun it?").
HUMANAS81
Hey guys,

It doesn't really matter!!
I am not the one to say which way is 'good' or 'bad', all it matters is having fun and accept your chummer with his quirks.so he wants to shoot all the time?Let him at 'em! He wants to give a Shakespearean performance?Let him do it!It doesn't matter as long as he is good at what he does.I think the best for a group is having both types in it.Let the role-player do the talking and the roll-player do the killing and everyone is happy! biggrin.gif
Drain Brain
Sphinx - that's not strictly acurate - the aforementioned example could quite easily convince me to not pick my nose in public, speak quietly and coherently and take a bath... wink.gif

Since I'm here, can everybody stop using the "Shaksperian Actor" descriptor to bash Roleplayers? It offends me... as an actor... biggrin.gif

In fact, a capable actor roleplayer like myself or my father would be accepptable to most of you - because we get into our characters. What you're bitching about (as someone already noted) is metagaming which any self respecting actor wouldn't do. It's all about getting in the subject's head and boy, if I were the sort of person who would metagame, I'd also be the sort that got chucked out of PA college!

And number crunching is a hobby of mine, so I think I'm fairly balanced. I would like to ask Polaris:

QUOTE

I have said it before, and I will say it once more. In shadowrun (where your chummers lives are on the line) any player that does NOT min-max is doing not only himself but his fellows players a grave disservice....and I do mean grave in the literal sense.


Does this mean that my character who deliberately was not given a ranged weapon or firearm skill is doing my fellow players a disservice? I did it for character reasons to enhance my enjoyment of the game, but does that mean that I should be shunned on the grounds it does not fit with your ideals?

John Campbell
Role-playing does not mean never getting into combat. Role-playing does not mean doing nothing but sitting around talking. Role-playing does not mean not being able to play effective characters. Role-playing does not mean OOC metagaming and using your native mental attributes to substitute for your character's. Role-playing does not mean not understanding the rules. Role-playing does not mean never being able to have fun.

Did I miss any of the straw men?
Drain Brain
Nope, you got 'em all... deader than straw...

No, wait... wink.gif
Polaris
Brain Drain,

Did you discuss it with the players in advance? What role and responsibility will you fulfill in the party?

See where I am going? The fact you did not take a ranged weapon may or may not be a disservice to everyone else. If the party needed a ranged combatent, then I would say you did. I would also note that there is no reason why the team in character wouldn't dump you from someone that fit their team better tactically.

OTOH, if you are a mage, decker, fixer, etc, then perhaps you don't need the ranged attack.

John,

The problem is that "real" roleplaying has been used as an excuse for all the sins you have mentioned. I also note that in shadowrun, the best a trog can do with a 1 charisma is two successes on his speech...and only if the others were inclinded to be friends anyway (which is unlikely I think). That has definate implications. The troll should never have been allowed to get away with that. It is metagaming.

-Polaris
Lin Hayati
QUOTE (Sphynx @ Sep 17 2003, 05:34 AM)
Yeah Cain, a Charisma 1 -anything- isn't articulate enough to make any kinda speech that'd win someone over.  Charisma 1 is the guy who talks too loud while sniffling and picking his nose.  Maybe he's Intelligent enough to say all the right things, but it could NOT be said, no matter how intelligent the idea is, in a manner that is inspiring enough to win people over.  That's poor roleplaying, IMHO.

Sphynx

Though if the guy made his amazing speech, *then* rolled something amazingly high for his one success on the Charisma test, then a GM could allow it. I've had my Charisma 3 character manage to talk her way out of sticky situations by 1) me saying the right thing (and this isn't metagaming because my own Charisma is probably also 3, if that) and 2) making some impressive die rolls. Even the guy who talks too loud while picking his nose *can* get lucky.
Sphynx
Heheheh, not to sound like the "roll"player here... but wouldn't it be resisted with Int (am I convinced?) or Will (should I change my decision?). If so, then no matter how well the one dice is rolled, the resisted roll of even 2 or 3 dice (TN 2) will likely win out. No matter how much of a bonus the GM gives, the opposition still gets to roll to resist (though a really nice GM might raise their TN to resist instead of lowering the TN of the Troll).

Sphynx
Person 404
Etiquette, negotiation, and leadership are all simple TN tests, not opposed rolls. Intimidation and interrogation are open tests to set the base TN for opposition. Nobody's yet said what skill (if any) this troll is using, but if it is a social skill, it's probably not an opposed roll.
Polaris
404,

Negotiation is (defacto) resisted because the TN of your check is the other guy's intelligence and the other guy rolls his Negotiation skill against your Int. The one with the most successes has the advantage.

That sounds like a resistance check to me (actually an opposed check but the point is made I think...one die is not going to cut it).

-Polaris
Person 404
And again, since no one has mentioned if this troll has any skills whatsoever, we don't know if it is one die. If he has an applicable skill of 1 or is defaulting, fine. Otherwise, the situation may be different.
John Campbell
QUOTE (Polaris)
I would also note that there is no reason why the team in character wouldn't dump you from someone that fit their team better tactically.


This statement is utterly priceless. Can you really not think of a single reason why a team would retain a person who might not be perfectly ideal for the role? Do people in Polarisworld not ever allow friendships or relationships to influence their decisions? Do people in Polarisworld always have the option of selecting a perfect candidate, and never have to just go with who they can find? Do people in Polarisworld never have the Fates drop someone on them who is indispensible for plot reasons, but poorly suited for the job they have to do? Do people in Polarisworld always have the luxury of reshuffling their team to fit any given tactical circumstance? Do... hell, come up with a reason or six of your own. They're not hard to think of, if you're capable of role-playing rather than restricting yourself solely to roll-playing. (For that matter, some of those are valid even when confining oneself solely to roll-playing.)

QUOTE
The problem is that "real" roleplaying has been used as an excuse for all the sins you have
mentioned.


Yes, but not by the role-players. That's what makes them "straw men" rather than "valid points". If you want to attack someone's position, it works a lot better if you attack a position that they actually hold, rather than one that they don't.


And as far as Detritus goes, I suspect that he's got only a 1 Charisma, and Etiquette, Interrogation, and Negotiation to match, but has at least four or five dice of Intimidation (Physical), plus the sorts of bonuses that you get only from being a troll with a loaded siege engine pointed at the intimidatee's head. Most of Detritus's successful social interactions are the result of either simple persistence (the advantages of being too stupid to get bored and too stubborn to give up), or defaulting to Intimidation.
last_of_the_great_mikeys
Lemme add to the mix here...

Ofton players are not like their characters. Especially regarding mental statistics and skills. Perhaps some have no experience with theur character's skills at all...or have average mental capacaty while their character's a mental giant. If one has no experience or basis in a skill, or is not as smart as their character (or as dumb!) it can be hard to act it out. Thus, dice rolling saves the day. SOme players are also he quiet type who aren't good personally at adapting, but their characters are. They probably roleplay as best they can. But if someone's character is really different than the player, role-playing is a difficult challenge.

That being said, ya gotta at least try to have your character remain in character. Many's the time I've played a character so different from myself that there's no basis to roleplaying it properly, but I give it a good hard try. THEN I roll the dice to see if my character's awe inspiring speech works it's wonders...even though my speech skills bite big time!
Siege
Interesting aside since Detritus was mentioned -- anyone else thing that "Intimidation (Physical)" should be linked to Strength rather than Charisma?

Sorry, the vodka is taking hold.

-Siege
Cain
Suffice to say, after four hours of repeating the same question over and over paitiently, just about anyone would come around to your point of view, if only to get you to finally stop. When it's being done by a nearly-invulnerable troll, who takes your best attack without blinking, and then repeats the question... well, just about anyone would crack. biggrin.gif

Sphynx: I do, but that's just me. Trolls should really be able to learn Intimidation more easily, just from the size advantage. Being big and scary means you're unlikeable, but it shouldn't mean you have a harder time frightening people.
QUOTE
I strongly disagree. Min-Maxing can lead to caraicture, but I think it is a mistake to say that it will always do so. In fact that very statement comes periously close to the elitism I was complaining about and sounds suspiciously like you too have found "the one true way" to roleplay yourself. Does that mean that you play caraictures?

Did you actually *read* what I posted? I said, "too much min/maxing", etc. And I made similar comments about Drama Queens. So, in fact, your points are totally invalid, as they're based on a complete and utter misreading on what I wrote. I'll be nice, and assume that it was a lack of reading skills on your part, and not a deliberate attempt.

I find it very interesting that anyone who disagrees with your views on roleplaying are therefore elitists. And telling people that they're "doing a grave disservice" is very much preaching as to the One True Way.

I'd suggest you try reading, sometime. You might just learn something.
Polaris
Cain,

You might want to return the favor and read what I post as well. As for being elitist, there is enough here to go around. Think about it. How much min-maxing is too much? Either you have a min-maxed character or you do not.

You seem to think that min-max==combat bunny. In fact that is hardly the case at all. Min-Max means what it says....you maximize your advantages and minimize your disadvantages. What you consider your advantages and disadvantages to be...and what is optimal is entirely character driven. With that understood, there is no such thing as "too much" min-maxing. There is bad min-maxing (and not developing your character is in fact bad min-maxing) and there is proper min-maxing.

John,

"Polarisworld"?! Hardly. Just the gritty Sixth World where your life depends on the skills that your chummers can bring to help you and vice versa. There are no friends in shadowrun. You watch your back at all times in shadowrun. Johnsons and the corps try to screw you over all the time in shadowrun. Thus you damn well better put your skills over friendship in shadowrun....and you watch your back just in case. This is all a very valid read of the canonical published material. Those that put feelings over pragmatism in shadowrun get fed to the rats either by a hostile Johnson or their own (ex) teammates.

If you don't like that, then I suggest you play in a different world.

-Polaris
Cain
I did read your post. Twice, because I couldn't believe someone would be able to cotnradict themselves so much in one post, and misread my last post without either having the reading ability of a kindergarden student or being deliberately offensive.

Too much min/maxing is when someone thinks their character has to be superior at one thing. That turns a character into a cariacture, one or two traits exaggerated into the ruins of roleplay.

Now, if that's how you like to play, none of us will call the gaming police on you, I promise. We'll simply laugh at the kiddie games, and wander off to game with adults. Which is a more satisfying game, incidentally.

I'll even make it simple. Anyone who preaches as to the "One true way" of playing Shadowrun is a munchkin-- either a RP munchkin or a numbers munchkin, but always incapable of playing anything but a cariacture of a Shadowrunner. Thus, we can easily say that anyone who thinks the Sixth world can only be viewed one way is...?
Polaris
QUOTE
I did read your post.  Twice, because I couldn't believe someone would be able to cotnradict themselves so much in one post, and misread my last post without either having the reading ability of a kindergarden student or being deliberately offensive. 


You were accusing me of being offensive? Mr. Pot meet Mr. Kettle. Enough said.

QUOTE
Too much min/maxing is when someone thinks their character has to be superior at one thing.  That turns a character into a cariacture, one or two traits exaggerated into the ruins of roleplay.


This is the prime example of the condescending and elitist attitude that I find characteristic with all too many "real" roleplayers. Listen to yourself Cain and decide if this is really the way you want to sound.

A person should be good even very good at one or two general classes of things. Most people in real life are. In fact the system supports this by providing another set of skill points just for fleshing your character out....the background skills...based on Int. I can not believe you actually believe what you are saying.

Being a "one trick" pony is bad min-maxing. It not only is a chariacture, but it also means that you have not minimized your weaknesses. A well "Min-Maxed" character has a very interesting background and a solid set of skills and abilities, but is extremely competant is a fairly narrow band of abilities. However, don't forget the "Min" in Min-Max. All to many so-called "real" roleplayers do. Also don't assume that just because a character is optimized that he is a charaicture. That is completely false and again I am suprised you would believe this even for a moment.

QUOTE

Now, if that's how you like to play, none of us will call the gaming police on you, I promise.  We'll simply laugh at the kiddie games, and wander off to game with adults.  Which is a more satisfying game, incidentally. 

I'll even make it simple.  Anyone who preaches as to the "One true way" of playing Shadowrun is a munchkin-- either a RP munchkin or a numbers munchkin, but always incapable of playing anything but a cariacture of a Shadowrunner.  Thus, we can easily say that anyone who thinks the Sixth world can only be viewed one way is...?


Then you had better include yourself in that category of "Munchkin" by your own words which I have quoted above because you have in fact just demonstrated that you believe there is only one right way to play shadowrun (yours) and anyone that disagrees is childish, belongs in kindergarden, and a host of other offensive and elitist epithets.

Are you sure you want to come across as an elist bastard because that is sure what your quote above sounds like to me? You might want to reconsider.....

-Polaris
Cain
QUOTE
QUOTE
Too much min/maxing is when someone thinks their character has to be superior at one thing.  That turns a character into a cariacture, one or two traits exaggerated into the ruins of roleplay. 


This is the prime example of the condescending and elitist attitude that I find characteristic with all too many "real" roleplayers.

So... any time someone complains about excessive min/maxing, they're being elitist and condescending? Wow, talk about sensitive? Did I hit a sore spot with you? Unless you happen to think there is no limit to how far you can min/max...

QUOTE
A person should be good even very good at one or two general classes of things. Most people in real life are.

As a matter of fact, most people in real life are about average at everything. Slightly above average in some areas, but rarely superior. Shadowrun characters are heroic, of course, which is what makes them fun to play. However, they're not superheroic, which means they have normal flaws and weaknesses, not a vulnerability to Kryptonite.
QUOTE
Then you had better include yourself in that category of "Munchkin" by your own words which I have quoted above because you have in fact just demonstrated that you believe there is only one right way to play shadowrun (yours) and anyone that disagrees is childish, belongs in kindergarden, and a host of other offensive and elitist epithets.

As a matter of fact, I told you to go ahead and play your game. I haven't told you that you're playing the game wrong. I did say that I think *you* are either being deliberately offensive or have the reading skills of a six-year old; I'll let you decide which it was. And, incidentally, since to you an "elitist bastard" means providing facts and logic, and arguing for a balanced and fun game encompassing a variety of styles... well, I'll take it as a compliment.
Sunday_Gamer
One of the big problems when discussing the bare bones of situations like this is that Shadowrun like so many other systems, merges looks with presence.

OBVIOUSLY presence is NOT what Charisma represents because if it was, then there's NO way Trolls would get such a negative. Trolls get that minus because they're ugly, not because they're not impressive.

A 10 foot Troll with a STR of 12 would no doubt be MUCH more effective at intimidation than a 120 pound elf with an 8 charisma. You might want to fondle the elf but you should probably be FAR more frightened by the visciously ugly Troll who's drooling all over you as he tells you he likes your jacket, know what I mean?

But the same Elf would be MUCH better at inspiring people or negotiating a complex deal. You really have to bend the rules a little.

Any Troll in my campaigns who wishes to take intimidation can definitely make a case to not have his skill based on CHA, he just better not try to be subtle, know what I mean?

Sunday
Shadow
I think part of the problem is the double negative. Role players are to often IMHO ignore social stats for there own skill in that area, ala the troll. If your character is trying to lift 500 lbs, do we make you lift it? No. Then why is the shy guy, or the guy who may just not be good with words penalized when his character has a charisma of 6?

Heres an example. I was playing a very charismatic elf not to long ago, Cha 8, friendly face and good reputation. Plus all the social skills at least 4. Hey I was the face. We were in this bar and there was this hot chick in there so I saddle on up to her. I tell the gm OOC that I am going to use my considerable skills and charisma to charm her. He tells me, this is "role-playing, not roll-playing" and that I, me personally, needed to charm her. I was pissed. Mainly because I need a real girl to talk to like that. It's hard to stare at a guy and say how hot she is. So he completely ignored my numbers in face of Role ploying. This is flat out wrong. Needless to say she shot me down, and hard.

So now of course when anyone says that BS line I want to stuff it down there throat, no offense.
Sunday_Gamer
I think this is one of those topics without end =)

Sunday
Cain
I see where you're going, shadow, and you're right-- to a point. If a gamer has the skills, and convincingly pulls off a social encounter, I'll let him or her get away with fewer dice rolls, and maybe at a bonus. It's more fun to see it played out, for the people I game with at any event. As always, YMMV.

If people only handle things through dice rolls, they lose a lot of the flavor that can be brought into the game. If you entirely go without dice rolls, you start the metagaming trend of your character being able to do things because you can, and not because he/she should be able to. I feel the balance is in the middle.
Polaris
Cain,

That is exactly the problem. You are forcing the player to use his charisma and social skills in the encounter and as shadow correctly pointed out, that's not fair. A much better solution would be to abbreviate the encounter. That is to say you let the person try as best he can so you (as the GM) can get a feel for his approach, and then you make the skill roll.

Player to player interaction is where the roleplaying really comes to the fore. In addition, your system Cain encourages people to play characters much like themselves (for what should be obvious reasons) at least socially....and that leads to chairactures which you claim to hate.

-Polaris
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012