Видео

100

This may seem pretty random but are you the absolute hero that has been translating MPD Psycho recently?

Well, "pretend" would be pure role-play but not much of a game. And a roleplaying game it is. So by definition every roleplaying game is an hybrid of sorts, with varying degrees of roleplay and rules.

That was a strong argument, but if true, is devastating to, at least Dungeons and Dragons as I have participated in, I'd say since the mid-90s and especially since, I'd say 2019. With the exception of an ancient (35+ years) ongoing Greyhawk campaign I was in, in my experience today, players no longer role-play at all and are hostile to me when I role-play. They are 100% tactical and have no use for a character apart from tactical strength. If pressed, they resort to the most tired stereotypes, and derisive of odd choices like druid. Druids are arguable one of the most tactically strong of classes, but they are just too odd and too suspect of some quality-which now I suspect is that they possess an innate motivation, lol... nature-love. As I say, this is still very alien to me, coming out of the D&D of 1980. Character quirks were assumed part of the play. I don't dismiss the allure of powerful combat buffs then, but the thing was, those didn't exist to the extent they have since 4e. One gained power by playing a very long time and obtaining magic items and spells, a substantial investment of time.

A well-made, and somewhat fresh argument! And cogent, I might add. Well done, enjoyed. I like how making character defining moments aligns the players and the DM. I've seen DMs default to asking arguing players to find a way to resolve in character. Its makes a judgement from the DM unneeded. I feel I do have to put in my preference for the days before the rules were so comprehensive. It was also that lost latchkey era when parents were borderline absent and their rules barely noticed. In the old days, my gang planned and prepared the most complex of solutions to attacking monsters, or bypassing them by hiding this place than that place. I just cannot imagine a modern player having patience for convoluted plays or socially deceptive disguises or throwing distractions or running skirmishes over and over on the same monsters, trying to tear them down. Your argument isn't about that tired old debate, I'll grant. And maybe I'm wrong about the modern player. Please let it be so! I've been anti-mechanic lately and wished you had validated that. But I admit I find mechanics acceptable that the group has devised in the throes of play, and not read in an astonishingly long series of volumes each costing $50 or more. Role-play would seem to efficiently reduce, at least the sense that the players are in mortal contest over the rules as given. May your solution be taken to heart by viewers!

The Platonic form of role play is not a game. It's an activity adjacent to gaming, but probably closer to other creative and performing arts.

I think the gap here is the difference between role-play and a "role-playing GAME". A game implies mechanics and rules, to varying degrees and to taste. The point of a game vs. improv theater isn't protections against bad or abusive game masters. It's a different goal entirely. Both are valid, but games have guardrails through their rules and settings, so are both more common and more casual. Still, many of the points about role playing are very good and applicable to games.

Man have you ever heard of just roleplay?

This was excellent. You put into words what I have struggled to convey as a GM for years.

I've listened to all of your content thus far and I must say 🙏🙏 Thank god someone like you exists to put stuff into the right words. I have to say the idea of reification has such wider ranging ramifications for even the way in which people conceive of and understand the world. Regarding the break down I get from all of your videos, I cannot agree more. I have played many different systems from "rules lite" to the Pathfinder behemoth and I truly believe that D&D hurts (might be a but strong/the wrong term) the "roleplaying" hobby. Not to say it is a bad game, but, reification is difficult. The many layers of game mechanics provided and sort of deified in the PHB/DMG make concepts of player-driven "falling forward" or "co-creation" nearly impossible (or at least not supported by the mechanics). This means that GM's job ends up being proactively creating world for the player to explore AND dictating how a player can act (not the ideal but again, not really supported through gameplay) rather than the GM being a reactionary force that meets the players action with consequence - as is seen in many "moves-based" systems. I often find myself pinching things from other systems like "these things are true" from 10 Candles or "Devil's Bargain" from Blades in the Dark just to allow elements of co-creation and to encourage building on that with reification because it is not supported within the confines of the D&D rules. Honestly I think my favourite of recent years is Ironsworn - although not perfect - the game being designed not to have a DM from conception means that everyone takes on the role of director and player making for an immersive experience that is ALWAYS co-created. It means that things that are reified just...are, and do not need to validated by someone (i.e. the GM). Keep it up man, I am absolutely loving everything you share.

I don't know why the RUclips algorithm chose to show this video to me, but browsing through your channel content was love at first sight ❤

I have a question about drive mechanics. What DO you recommend for "oomph"? One of my problems with conventional RPGs is that I usually have no mechanism to half-ass this task and really put oomph into that one.

This was awesome; an explanation I struggle with. Having been ejected from games for role-playing, I suspect there is a deep-seating fear at work: of looking like a dork for role-playing, or WORSE: feeling that some serious degree of acting skill is expected. I wish you would address that we aren't going for immersive Shakespeare or method-acting. We are just going for what the group does together: often what amounts of casual no-stakes improv. The game really gets amazing when SOMEONE ELSE responds to something you said or did. I realize a lot of players really value the power of having mastering thousands of pages of rules. But really, going for the roleplaying does transform the game experience, and gives back a similar sense of 'worldly' confidence as well. Secondarily, I urge players to experience a game played at a good clip, where rules-discussions DON'T slow the game down. I suspect many new or young or insecure players fear that, in the absence of scrupulous rules, the DM will exert undue punishment on their precious PC due to unknown malicious propensity. I assure player that this is not the case, and even it were the rules don't prevent anything the DM decides to do. There is a certain amount of trust, and also abandon, that the experience of the game will reflect their choices. If players need a few moments to put their heads together, or time for thought, this too the DM and the game's pace must respect. If there are indeed arguments, these can be pressed in character. Yes, it is a different kind of game. I WOULD NOT say it is immersive, properly, but there are tactile feedbacks which can foster a fun and even passionate imagined sense of being much more than one's everyday self. THAT is why the game has grown, in large. People who won't role-play are missing out on a lot of fun.

Aug 18, 2024 Shonner uploaded a good favorable critical thought response video concurring with you before he passed on . R.I.P. Shonner. He recommended your channel. I hope you appreciate his work. Thank You. I hope you got a chance to appreciate that response video by now.

I love it! I think it is a great way of describing game design and its function in the wider lens of lay

Maybe it's just me, but the most immersive roleplaying experience I ever had was with a system that is beyond "bloated" (Shadowrun 5e). And I admit, I haven't regurgitated as much as I could have. But I played a character that I really liked, both in concept and in "feel", and every choice I made, even if it was filtered by mechanics, felt important and, in its way, cool, because I cared about the character, I cared about the world, so everything felt personal, including the numbers. I'd say more: personally, I didn't even need to have the fight narrated: knowing that you dealt X points of damage to X enemy could have a huge narrative weight, if you knew honor and the lives of (fictional) people you cared about were on the line. I've had other experiences, more centered in roleplaying, where the focus was much more on the narrative... and I didn't care nearly as much about what was going on. Maybe I even came up with some cool solution... but it was more of a way to move the action forward, I didn't really feel anything. So, from my personal experience, I'd say that what this video suggests is surely something to think about, at least for presentation's sake: it makes everything more elegant, that's for sure. But the true deciding factor of whether or not you feel immersed in a game is linked more with a personal degree of connection with the characters and the events that are unfolding, which can vary from person to person.

Good lord that is a rage-clickbait title. Yeah, as a GM if I write an entire storyline start to end as if your players are going to follow the linear railroad the whole time like a game, movie, or novel... yeah... they're incompatible. But if you write an idea for your end goal "The PCs defeat the BBEG" or whatever, and you simply have multiple ideas per stepping stone to get to that objective... for example maybe a mystery game where in the first encounter they're given multiple clues to follow, and depending on which clue they get multiple follow up clues, and as your PCs advance the storyline you've set out you give them more breadcrumbs to follow in different directions you and your players can both unravel the story and an organic interesting way. For the most part I only place out the next "Stepping stones" of the campaign, because players will do the most wild things at any given moment that can potentially ruin your whole plot that you've developed. If you spend your entire time writing about how the players will follow X plotline after discovering Y macguffin type thing, and then your players never discover the macguffin and go off on Z tangent... you've just wasted all your effort. This doesnt mean these things are incompatible, it just means you're coming at RPGs with player choice and ingenuity at the wrong angle.

Food analogy. The platonic form of food doesn't need a plate drinks, ambience or company, but the way to enhance the food itself is to add all these things that aren't food. When I roleplay I also want things that aren't roleplay to make the roleplay better. For me, the purest roleplay would also be the least enjoyable since it lacks all the auxiliary elements (dice, drinks, mechanics, strategy, music, etc.)

Shout out to my DM for sending me here 🫶🏻 thanks for the great advice!

I’m 2 months late to the party, but you asked about adventures where the mystery goes unsolved and I have come to answer. I’ve run a lot of Call of Cthulhu, snd twice now the mystery has gone somewhat unsolved. I imagine you have a mystery, and chasing that mystery means getting a more and more complete picture of what’s going on. So with that in mind, let me tell you of Blackwater Creek and The Derelict, spoilers ahead. In Blackwater Creek, the investigators sus out the outlawed hooch is laced with something pretty terrible, a sickly sweetness that can change people. But they don’t find the bootleggers, instead they get way off track running through the woods at night, basically following the corruption and evil to its horrid source. One man blows himself up and collapses the cave on the terror within, and the rest of the group flee Blackwater with its evil inhabitants hot on their heels. Lots of fun had. The Derelict was STRESSFUL. The invisible hunter sabotaged their boat as is suggested in the scenario booklet, and all hell breaks loose. In a last ditch attempt to gather gas and resources to repair the boat, they walk directly into its foetid lair in the underdeck and slog it out in a terrible, burning combat. The only ‘survivor’ fled to their wrecked boat, typing out her novel as her writer’s block finally clears. Then I played the Predator sound effect and called curtains.

this feels like a show your work problem in math where the answer is correct but the work is completely wrong

I think I actually really disagree with this, from the perspective of my own experience---part of the reason I pick up a new game in the first place is to try new "code", and I enjoy the moments of skillful/compelling interaction with the 'code' just as much, albeit differently, from moments of compelling narrative, immersion, or creativity. To use a video game counter-analogy, I see it as part of the appeal of interactive play, like speedrunning, dark souls, or survival, or automation, or any other game/game element where there are non-diegetic factors that are still attractive. I certainly don't play video games exclusively for the purpose of appealing to human experience (and I'm certain I'm not alone). Further, as the 'game' of an rpg is a conversation, I don't find that fluidity at all disconcerting. There are times I want to speak in character, times I want to describe or create something, and times I want to think about how to use the numbers, prompts, probabilities, and rules in an interesting way. I love when my players talk about how to solve a problem, I love when they decide to use those mechanics in an interesting way that changes the narrative. I think really fun moments of choice, tension, catharsis, whatever can come from all different sides: mechanical, diegetic, narrative, creative, others. There's something wonderful about a player doing the most optimal thing in terms of gameplay that they have to make their character live with, or has a really great character moment that informs an interesting mechanical approach. What about a group of PCs who use most of their big resources they were saving because a fight got a bit too personal? What about a Wanderhome character who wants to 'ease someone's pain, if only for a moment' but who doesn't have the token for it, so they have to settle for 'speaking their true feelings on a subject'? What about a Follow game where the characters want to succeed but the players think they haven't done enough? Tell me that experience of picking a second red token out of the bag doesn't make you, the player, feel something, regardless of what's going on with the character. I do see where this is coming from, as I have seen a lot of reticence in gameplay around being immersed or making strong creative decisions in the moment (and it is frustrating! but imo it's not an impermeable barrier, and one that can be made much less challenging with certain types of more accessible game 'code', i.e. focused questions/turn in For the Queen or pick-lists in Mobile Frame Zero: Firebrands). I don't think the answer is to try to restrict the experience of extradiegetic elements as much as possible, however, because I think it de-emphasizes a type of interaction that I actually really cherish. Anyway, this might be my early tabletop background as a wargamer coming out (but never say I didn't weep for my dead chaos space marines when they went down!), but in my mind mechanical interaction should not be considered an undesirable mode of play, and I think it's limiting to treat as such. I know if all I wanted was to make up a compelling story with my friends, I wouldn't be playing a game ("unpredictability" makes no difference, there are many simple ways to get around this by leaning very lightly into game-y mechanics, e.g. one person gets to speak at a time). Part of the reason I come to the table at all is because of the satisfying experience of learning to operate in unfamiliar and novel rulesets, and what their implications are. also 4e was sick and it took me way too long to realize it

Nice video. Good luck with attaining roleplaying purity. - I love roleplaying and started with D&D basic blue. The fun part was that there were so few rules that we spent more time talking and just making up stuff as we went along. For me, that was roleplaying and we seldom rolled the dice outside of combat. - Decades later finding a roleplay game without bloat is difficult. - I’m one of the few who like D&D 4th Edition enough to be able to play it and run it. Because of the ‘code’ that is prevalent in all the books and accessories, I chose to run it as an immersive reality game where the players are trapped in that universe, similar to Log Horizon and Sword Art Online. There was Metagaming as every PC was a real person who knew the game. It’s ok to talk about levels, feats, hit points and rules because the game universe is based on them. Doing that eliminated the need to translate from game lingo to natural language. Also, when players talked about the real world at the game table, those conversations happened in the context of the game. The NPCs talk to each other in a natural non-game way, but will speak game lingo when talking with PCs if necessary. The unexpected result was that the players were less stressed out about meta, got into roleplaying more, and…real world actions had an effect on the game-“you want to text during a meeting with the mayor?” They were relaxed, kept the humor manageable, and used their player wits and game knowledge to explore the world. Surprisingly, there was less die rolling and more talking. - We stopped gaming because of life and tried to start again with 5e. I’ve not played 4e for 10 years and am selling all 3 totes of stuff.

These are really interesting points, and I completely agree that roleplay is central to the experience. If I understand you correctly, you're highlighting two opposing perspectives, and you seem to lean more towards the roleplay side, which I find compelling. That said, would you agree that this is more of a spectrum, with positions ranging from one extreme to the other, including various blended approaches? For example, in Fate, the metacurrency isn't just plot armor but rather a tool to balance risk, reward, and consequences, ultimately enhancing roleplay. It allows players to shape the story of their character, much like your tea kettle analogy-empowering them to tell the story they want, rather than relying solely on the GM's narrative.

Soundblaster referenced, immediate trust built.

Thank you for such a solid reminder of where the game truly lives and how we bring it to life.

You're not wrong.

"Translate through your human" experience is also such a great way of putting this. Especially with regard to getting players on board

I aim for this as much as I can, but in practice I think the translation of RPG rules to RPG narratives can get hamstrung by the effort of bridging those things. One example I saw a lot when I still played D&D 5E was with the bard class: in the game's fiction, many of the bard's abilities are supposed to reflect them saying something so sharp-witted that other characters are either inspired or debilitated by their words. Often I'd watch bard players start out actively trying to reify those rules because making mid-battle quips sounds fun, only to devolve into repeated "I cast vicious mockery" around the twentieth time the game asked them to improv a joke on command.

another killer banger from The Crypt of Lemon. I'll be using this definition of "the code is not the game", as well as the sonic example. plus, would you mind if I make a video commenting on this idea, but in Portuguese?

We play characters, and unless we play Neo in the Matrix, we don't see the code. That's why the resolution mechanic shouldn't be taken in consideration while determining our options. Only the diegesis informs the decision making step of the character. That's what produces immersion. The resolution step comes next.

Best video so far

Roleplay? You mean for what? Prescription?

2 min in and subscribed!!! Loving it!

The first argument is fine- ideally we all know the system of the game we’re playing well enough that we don’t need to stop play and consult the book at any point during a play session. But the second part of the argument, I think, goes too far. We actually need to express the system in system terms in order to keep the game functioning smoothly. If the GM asks how many hit points I have left and I say “I have a gash in my shoulder” that’s great, but I will still need to follow up and explain what that actually means in system terms or else the game stops working.

Your analogy is absolutely awful. I tried to overlook it, I really did. But the awfulness seems to be contaminating and influencing your conclusion. Which is a problem. First, why is it awful? Because it'd exactly like trying to make a point about human biology with regards to the human heart by drawing analogy to a dog's LUNG. An objectively awful choice. Dogs HAVE an analogue for the human heart, and it is the dog heart. Picking the dog's lung, liver or fur is just a failure to pick a good analogy. In the same exact way, the contents of a D&D manual, the parts argued over, have a bespoke analogue. That bespoke analogue is the game-mechanics of the video game. The game mechanics of a D&D game are analogous to the game mechanics of World of Warcraft(for instance). Which yes, sounds silly to say, in the exact same way that saying that a human's heart in human biology is analogous to a dog's heart in dog biology. WoW is a particularly good reference point here, in that WoW has both regular-play servers and "roleplay" servers. The former are how some people actually approach D&D. The latter is more...reified. Neither is wrong in WoW, neither is wrong in D&D, but unlike WoW, the expectation at a D&D table is frequently something closer to the latter, this middle-ground position is the default expectation laid out in the books. I say middle-ground because a WoW roleplay server isn't actually(usually) trying to embrace "playing the game". They're JUST roleplaying by their meaning. The gear and build don't matter. They're not trying to be "successful". In D&D, though? Players actually are. And there's an entire online fallacy pertaining to the people who say optimization and roleplay are mutually exclusive pursuits. And yes, this means that players want to be talking about their cool 20-strength character, and what that to be a cool thing to talk about. But that's not the underlying issue you seem to be trying to address. You seem to be trying to address the dumb arguments. So what are players usually ARGUING about? Well, usually the problematic arguments are between the players and the DM as the "Balance Team Lead". Which is exactly as awful as the usual discourse among players discussing balance in DotA or League. Not something you want to be dealing with mid-game, both in a MOBA and in D&D. Sometimes, players are arguing about -bugs-, real or imagined. What's a bug? Well, an actual bug is when a DM is trying to faithfully follow the rules of the game, but fails. An imagined bug is when the players -think- that he failed, but he actually didn't. Usually, bugs are resolved very quickly at tables comfortable with rule lawyers, and ignored at tables trained to "stay in character". Tables with poor plans for handling bugs will have a lot of trouble reifying around them, but that trouble is not because of the bug, but because of the lack of a clear and cohesive plan on how to deal with bugs, trained into the relevant players. But the main reason this isn't usually a problem is because it is a rare time when the DM can be submissive to resolve an issue and that submissiveness isn't a problem. So where's the awful part. Well, its in how much you're pushing for the "roleplay server of WoW" style of D&D. You're pushing "WoW regular play server" players out of the conversation, and they're not the problem. While it'd be cool if the extreme side reified a bit more, its honestly fine that they don't. You can play around them on this just like they play around the poor skills of their peers.

This would be much easier, when you lost health points, your skills to hit also became lower. Like how would your stats be affected when you were very drunk, wounded? I think also it would be more tense, when you're fighting wounded, and your points all go down, except you get a higher critical hit if it succeeds to balance things out. That would make for easier role play, "Partially blinded by blood in my eyes I swing my sword where I sense the monster, and hope to cut its throat." and more danger once wounded, with still a chance to win.

I think that when you play a game thoroughly it becomes the language you speak. So when a game term is referenced it understood as it is meant and not necessarily something to be translated.

Hi! Can you make a playlist of your videos, please? It would be super convenient! I really like your videos^^ Especially how you start with this science-based or trivia facts that show why we are playing like that, plus great examples from other media! I'm pretty sure you must know, but if not, and you figured it out on your own, Ron Edwards has this old essay "Story Now" where he writes about the same thing: how ttrpgs are about playing story now in opposition to story before. From his newer works, I also strongly recommend his series "Phenomenology". You are talking about the same things in different words. Ron compares rpgs to playing music (jamming, not from the notes) together, where you compare it to baking ;) As I play many different rpgs I also can recommend "Archipelago" by Matthijs Holter and Jason Morningstar. In this game, there is no GM. Each player is playing their protagonist, asking others to play NPCs in their scenes and what's more important from the point of this video, they also divide among themselves the domains so that one player has the last word about the monsters, another about the weather and the third one about the magic and so on. It can be a logical conclusion to your point that if everyone plays the same role at the table (roleplaying) the group division on GM and Players is just one possibility and GMless games are great examples of that. Thank you once again for the hard work! I love this black & white look and titles (like mushrooms in the video about the immersion - it's just pure gold xD ).

I also learned the hard way that you most likely do not want your players to see the code. You have to explain how things work without too much detail and hide the rest the process. This happened to me with my modern dnd group when explaining how dungeon exploration is broken down in B/X they got really mad. Then, the next game, I did the exact same thing without telling them the process (what takes an exploration turn and such), and they had a blast.

Hi Matt, great video again. I actually think the analogy works well, but it also exposes some important differences. For example, at a table every player and the GM are different interpreters. You allude to this being a strength of the game, and I agree, but it can also cause issues when different interpretations just won't sync with one another in a productive way. I suspect this is why many tables end up devolving toward the least interpretative and most mechanical forms of the game, or why so many tables don't even try to hide the "code" as they know they will spend most of the time debugging and syncing. The second thing that came to mind as I was exploring your analogy was that in many situations the code itself is the problem. I know you're aware of this, as you've made quite a few videos talking about mechanics and what constitutes good mechanics from the perspective of immersive role-playing experiences. But I think it's important to keep reminding ourselves that sometimes the failure is not us, but games that refuse to be interpreted in an immersive way. HP in games like D&D is a perfect example. Even if you communicate damage in an in-world way, the moment you have to role-play any other action in which it seems as if nothing has happened, the dissonance will be jarring. I believe you're making your own system, but until that's done, I'm curious which games you've found to suffer the least from the problems I've pinpointed?

Somewhere, Thomas from the Lotus Eaters is heading for this comment section.

More good stuff, Matt. The analogy works. This is exactly why I went to full rules opacity for players. This way, the players don't have to mentally toggle between the 'codes/algorithms' and descriptions ('Switching Cost'). Instead, they only get/give descriptions.

More pretentious layers to interfere with good decision making during play.

I actually rarely agree with your takes about game mechanics and their value at the table but this take makes a ton of sense to me and your comparison to game code gets the point across well imo (even if, as you said, it probably breaks down when really pushed). - To be clear. Even though i rarely agree with your takes, i still always enjoy your videos. Your theses are always thought provoking.

Awesome thought, once again! ❤

Hi Matt, I’ve been watching your videos with enjoyment but only just saw this one. I run plenty of rules light games, but right now I’m running a sandbox Pathfinder 2E game as a gift to my forever GM friend who loves that system and has all the books. So, I’m stuck with the board game / RPG hybrid in this case, and frankly I enjoy it. It’s like combining sweet and savoury. But I’d love your thoughts on: how to make the most of this hybrid. In a way you are already doing this in your videos as you use a lot of examples from board-game-y RPGs. But a direct commentary would be interesting to me at least! Of course you are not a video vending machine, so just offering this thought as inspiration.

I'm a GM and have a difficult time organizing with game mechanics but I feel confident in my ability to RP NPCs (accents, reactions, actions , motives). How to give equal agency to my fellow players without making it to easy. Discourage murder hoboing shenanigans. "The PCs are heroes in the making" my mantra I must remind myself. Push the envelope to get them really thinking.

Completely agree Matt. Reification of the character and the fictional world is an excellent and ambitious goal.

I think it's odd to think of this is a player issue, at least in the sense that a player shouldn't speak in terms of game code. In a lot of these games, HP comes and goes rather frequently, so it becomes tiring to describe this stuff all the time. On a more pragmatic level, other players can find it difficult to listen to. "I have a few health potions. How hurt are you?" Hearing someone describe in purple prose their black eyes isn't too helpful unless they were near dead. Especially when gauging which party member needs healing more. And don't even get me STARTED on Conditions! In summary: A system should make it practical to describe the state of their character in natural language, lest people optimize the roleplay out of the game.