Confused or frustrated by this video? Go download this free PDF, give it a read, and then come back. www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/411975/how-to-roleplay-the-hard-way?affiliate_id=279721?affiliate_id=4316964
PRESENTATION: I have encountered this argument before, and I partially agree. There are ways of gaming as a player that lead to a more immersive, fulfilling role play experience (for me and possibly others). To insist that if people do not play that way is inferior form of gaming, is goading emotion. Emotional people are too busy emoting to listen. Intentionally upsetting the audience you are trying to reach is counter productive to your message. All of these judgements are made by setting yourself up as 'the authority'. This presents you as having the definitive guide on superior role playing. There is no room in this message for you to learn and grow or to accept that you could be wrong. This comes off like you have reached the pinnacle of the hobby and you are dictating to those beneath you. It looks very arrogant. So if people are angry, it might not be what you said, but how you said. STYLE: I like the martial arts analogy, but I feel it has been presented with very little scope. If one take a Karate class, your analogy fits. However there are many different styles of martial arts, and different techniques with in those styles. You may not like them, you may devalue them, but they exist, and ignoring them does not strengthen your premise. Your premise assumes there is only one style of RP you can be a master in. Just like fighting styles, there are numerous RP styles and people can gain a measure of mastery in that. A master of Karate, or Boxing, or HEMA, will stomp your ass just as flat. A player who plays their style well is a superior role player. Most, if they play a lot of games, put a lot of time into the hobby, most players will end in a similar place that you describe. Just like there are only so many ways the human body can move, in Martial Arts, there are ways to be more effective and efficient in your RP. As you gain experience in either you strip things that are style from things that are fundamentals. PLAY: This feels like an audition for people who want to play at your table. Which is fine, finding a group that fist the style you most want to play is great. Most of us play for fun, with our friends, and very very few put the time in to gain the mastery you are talking about. We are full grown adults with busy lives playing 'make believe' with dice, and laughing with people we get to see rarely. To insist that this is the best way for people to play with their imagination, the best way to direct their thoughts, is impertinent to the player.
I appreciate your comment. `Intentionally upsetting the audience you are trying to reach is counter productive to your message` I'd never want the people who are calling me names and belittling me at my table. I'm making sure we don't waste each other's time; they are not my audience. I'm trying to reach the people who are in philosophical alignment. "This presents you as having the definitive guide on superior role playing." I'm the definitive guide on how I see things. My channel can only present my perspective. If it were any other way, I'm being disingenuous. "This feels like an audition for people who want to play at your table." Fair enough; the funny part is that I play solo 99.9% of the time. I'm not at a stage in my life where I can commit time to group play. (that's why the channel is called "rolling stag") I appreciate your good faith engagement with the video! Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
"You're saying this plate of dog crap isn't fine dining? And you're not even a chef?!" I'm not dictating how other people play. I'm helping shine a light for others who might feel the same way, but not understand it yet.
I appreciate the balls this took to make this video. TTRPGs have gotten to a level of toxic positivity that I hardly interact with anyone outside of my circle because I tend to have pretty similar view points as your video and I just do not wanna have that argument with other at my favorite LGS much less in the comments section of the internet. Genuinely great job on the video!
Toxic positivity! That’s exactly it. You have to be excited about the new things and about every new campaign and session regardless of quality. Otherwise, you’re anti-fun!
You are excellent at something most of us in this sphere of RPGs are not: brevity! I would have taken probably 30 minutes to say everything you did in 5. I think this warrants a video response because there's some really valuable stuff here about why we even care about RPGs in the first place.
I would love to play fully immersed in roleplay someday, but the level of skill and the relaxed nature friends play like means they do very simple face-value roleplaying, and combat akin to a videogame, looking at what the sheet says they can do, and doing strictly that.
Yeah, I'm in a similar situation where I have zero ability to commit to any kind of schedule. (Hence my framing this channel as a solo endeavor) Tough to get out side our circles, isn't it?
Agh, I know your pain. I try to explain in terms of “look, imagine you could design any mods you wanted for the game on the fly. You don’t have to wait for someone to code it” Sometimes that helps them get the form
The first half of the video I can agree with, but for me to follow you further I would need a more clear definition of what “roleplay” is from your perspective. Also, critically evaluating if something is good or bad / better or worse requires knowing what the goal of the thing is. My goal when playing TTRPG’s is not deep character immersion. If that excludes me from what you view as a TTRPG, then I’m okay if we are separated. In the same way I have no interested in learning the flute (despite it probably being very rewarding to those who learn it), I am quite content knowing how to play guitar and piano.
Point 5 - Agreed. ... with a caveat. It is my experience that even the most reluctant to role play find themselves playing a role at one level or another with time and encouragement. My friend Kenny has poor reading and comprehension skills, and yet, he loves to play the game(s). He has his preferred classes, etc, and embraces them. And more often than not, when things are deep and intense at the table, his character shines. The longer he played, the less questions and confirmations he required, but they still happened. I've had more than a few players who, for one reason or another, would not or could not (or both), engage in any role play that most of us would accept. He was often blunt, using one word replies whenever possible, and asking questions out of character. I'd 'softly' remind him of that. He played for about a year and never understood (more than likely, he struggled with feeling 'stupid' or 'weird' while speaking as character while in character) why the rest of us got so immersed.
@@StagRPG Sometimes it's more than that: For example, I have found myself at various points in my life, in gaming deserts if you will. There were simply a very limited pool of players to pull from. What do you do then? Simply not play? Or, do you sit down with people and play? When I was young, I lived in a small town, with two friends, one who liked RPGs, the other liked War Games. So, I learned to play and run both. Occasionally we'd get a 'new kid', but the pool was still very limited until we reached High School. I also ran games while doing a little time. I don't like talking about that part of my life, but I've had cold faced killers (convicted ones mind) sharing my table. One even bought the 4th edition rules, about 10 books at one go, tried to DM for awhile and then asked me to do it instead. So, yeah....
@@StagRPG It's been a bit since I last played solo. 3 or 4 months I think, but it's mainly playing for videos showing the game I've spent 20 years working on. I really miss running play-by-posts on DnD beyond, but after WoTc bought it up, I dropped my membership. I've tried finding other platforms but haven't had any luck so far.
A LOT of grain of salts need to be taken with this one. You can already see elitists bloating their ego as we speak. When people say there are no "right" way to play it does not mean there are no "wrong" harmful way to play. It just means there are no "one size fit all". Because not everyone play for same goal or has same expectation toward gaming. Just like your martial arts analogy, it actually perfect. Some just train for fun, some to excercise, some to develop character and disciplibe, some to defense themselves and some to compete in sport. They are all valid, but none are sole correct choice. Yet some train to be better at harming others, to violate others, to find excuse to fight, to con people, to brag they did, to valid their flawed philosophy. These are harmful goal and motive that are "wrong" to pursuit. No one single right way does not mean no wrong way. But also does not means everyone should aim to be champion or listed weapon. It means you should find, or made, a group that match your level. If you feel too small for a pond you should seek bigger pond or dig one yourself, not complaining how other fishes are too weak or the pond is too small. You could, and should, encourage them to try and grow bigger, stronger. But you have no ethic right or moral high ground to pressure them or guilt tripping them into doing so. Least by internet validation.
While I broadly agree with the points being made here, I think it's worth remembering that the 'there's no wrong way to play' attitude came into being as a reaction to the extreme opposite. We had, arguably, a couple of generations of highly pretenscious gate keepers who not only imposed a lot of attitudes, but did so with out any particular insight, imposing them largely as a matter of convention and common preferences. We should definately nurture and respect the drive to generate art, but at the same time we need to make sure we don't recreate a distain for finger painting.
@@BunniRabbi I'm agreeing with you to the extent that fun is fun. The difference is saying fun is the sole focus, or only value of playing. So I'm cool with the fun players. I'm not cool with the "only fun" players.
@StagRPG I am, but likewise they need to accept that there are other kinds. To that end, I feel like we should encourage terminology that distinguishes the two sorts of players, in order to facilitate communication when setting up games.
Wait...So you mean we shouldn't waste everyone's' time by goofing off for 3/4s of the session. Or. adding inclusive everything isn't just another waste of my life...? -N.I.P. (Non Interested Player) "What would my character do right now?" "What is my character even doing here?" -G.N. (Game Novelist)... "You smell frustration and hear metal grinding on your agency as you turn around you see the train as it slams into you and carries you off to the next encounter. What do you want to do? Go ahead and roll a d20 and tell me what you get." -Good Times. Same time next week? ... A goal of anyone's session should be the attempt to stay in harmony with the table, tone, and setting. Results should be memorable.
@StagRPG ...my computer was on dark mode or something. When I went to comment the text was blended into the background...couldn't see it...once that was established, I edited. Good video by the way. Entertained I was.
The problem with this framing is that it's only a problem in your perspective... which is fine, but when you're at table that enjoys goofing off and you're the one sitting there being sour about it, it should be a sign that their table isn't for you, not the other way around.
@Jo_youwhatmate ...I agree. I was joking around about the things that I like and don't like. 99.9% of games are exactly that. Jokes and Safe words. -The atrocious example is yet another way people endure RPGs. -The suggestion at the end is the nugget of info worth anything that should be usable for any situation. Like my comment, jokes are not universally funny. For example...you probably wouldn't come see my set. You vetted me. Vetting is the most important thing before you commit. There can be anomalies that happen but mostly you want to know what you are signing up for. Love is not blind when your eyes work. Full disclosure...I am a giant advocate for "different groups do different things" and argue for that fact. There is no "right" way to do things. There "is" though the way that "i" like to try to play. Sorry for dropping an insult to your intelligence...("insult to your intelligence" is not saying your dumb...its actually a complement that you are smart and my comment was dumb and it forced you to correct me.)
Spot on... Good luck because nobody ever listens to me when I say this sort of thing. The rules bring structure; they give both starting points and means to progress, pretty much in any direction you'd like. So, on one hand you can, indeed, play your game any way YOU want to play it, but it's still a game, with rules; with structure; with purpose. It's similar to the 'absolutists' role-players. i.e. people who are pushing the rules and structure aside to embrace their concepts of total immersion. It doesn't help that it's hard to expression our opinions without cheesing off self-proclaimed purists.
I like looking for those few magical systems that are super capable while staying out of the way of the experience. Traveller being one; same mechanic for everything, basically. Not a lot of "which minigame should I be using right now?" It's all 2d6 over 8+ in the vast majority of situations. Simple.
@@StagRPG I played the first edition back in the late 70's, early 80's when I wasn't running Space Opera. I enjoyed the character creations system that Traveler uses.
Hey, I have come to politely disagree. I fully agree that the sentence: “there are no right way to play TTRPGs” may insinuate that there is neither a wrong way to play TTRPGs. So let me rephrase the sentence. “There is no one right way to play TTRPGs.” There fixed it. I agree that your idea of TTRPGs is fun, I love role playing, but I also know it isn’t for everyone. Not because they cannot comprehend the idea, but if they are not comfortable with it or other any reason. My favourite type of game is the one where you roleplay, and then, by accident break character, notice that it’s a human being in-front of you, and then roleplay again. Like Adventures of Azarim or Tales of The Misfits, by Viva La Dirt League. But in the end, I will also leave my own opinion on the best way to play. With a carefully crafted story, unique homebrewed creatures and the one rule that vetoes any other: if even one player finds a subject uncomfortable, that subject shall not come up. I understand that life isn’t always easy, and some days you want to play as the character, imagining this grand world that you escape into. And other days you just want to meta game a tiny bit to feel badass and in control of something in your existence. One isn’t less right because of the title of the game, one doesn’t give its players a worse experience. I tell you, the GM is the one that makes a good or a bad experience. The GM and then the players, and who knows, maybe we will roleplay. Thanks for reading. Best regards- Benjamin
I appreciate you being cordial. The thing I want to point out is that you are changing what I said, and then disagreeing with that. What are your thoughts about the things I said, as presented?
@ I am sorry, I think I then might have misunderstood you. Your point is that the right way to play TTRPGs are through good roleplay, correct? If not, please tell me, I would love to understand your point of view :)’
Show me examples of people roleplaying in their roleplaying games. Find actual plays where that's happening. 99% of people don't roleplay. Then they say they're having fun and that fun is the only thing that matters. I'm saying those people are wrong.
@@StagRPG I might have miss clicked and not sent the message. I f I didn’t, then I am sorry to double ping you, I rarely use the RUclips comment section. I personally agree that a good story/roleplaying makes TTRPGs more enjoyable. But I also know not everyone plays TTRPGs to experience the epic high fantasy world, some play sandbox games, and I don’t think that is less right. I will also say that I find it fun to break character. Breaking the fourth wall lets you see that the person on the other side of the table indeed is a human and not Baradune the previous high sorcerer who was falsely banished and so on. Two examples of real campaigns that does this well are Tales of the Misfits for a campaign that leans further towards roleplaying, and Adventures of Azerim that leans more towards comedy roleplay and breaking character when a player makes a mistake. So I might have written it badly at first, and maybe again, but I disagree that the people who doesn’t roleplay does something wrong, and isn’t getting the best out of the game. The question should rather be if it’s the best for the individual player and not generally, it’s actually really hard to make a generalised statement. :)’
@@benja_0105 The people I'm disagreeing with are the people who "only" play for fun, and then turn around and say fun is the goal / reason to play. Nope. No thank you. I'm not going to play inside the confines of someone else's lack of imagination.
Some people want to dance. I want to Tango. But we can all participate in dancing as a social activity and moving our bodies to the music. But not everybody can Tango. At least in Roleplaying. I'm a horrible dancer. But I created this analogy to show the distinction in skill when it comes to roleplaying, and what I'm aiming for when I want to join a Roleplay session. This way, I can proverbially "sign up" to the "right" dancing class.
1:40 They are valid expressions, but the quality and expertise gap is astronomical. That's what we keep saying, your experience at your table when you play just for fun is 100% valid and if that's what you want then keep doing it, it's just that it's mostly not roleplay and that's objective.
In other art forms we have some conventional terminology and varied contexts for these different practices. We need something like that for rpgs. Like the way we understand that professional artists are doing something different than when people are making art as a hobby.
@EteraRPG I don't know, I think the more serious rpg play is often enough centered on adventure too, so I don't know if that would stick. That being said, if you have an rpg not focused on an adventure I do think that's more likely to be in that non-casual catagory.
@@BunniRabbiThat’s part of what we’re trying to do with the 1D-4D classification model. Have a framework for what dimension you’re playing in, and at least encourage people to write social contracts.
@flamezombie1 Terminology that contains a pejorative implication is less likely to be accepted. I do appreciate the idea of taking on the contract idea.
You can only get so broad in your philosophical pondering before they lose all meaning. What do you mean to say is the correct way to play ttrpgs? Most of the “no wrong way,” idea comes from the fact that the most prolific rpg (Dungeons and Dragons) has like 900 pages of “core” rulebooks. Most of the debates about “how to play,” center around rules minutiae, the use of paraphernalia like miniatures or VTTs, or the endless “railroading v sandbox,” debate. So, what are you advocating for?
@@StagRPGI watched the whole thing. It’s 6 minutes long and not as intellectually challenging as you seem to think. Full immersion, real time decision making, yada yada…but how does that apply to the game elements of the game. Are you still rolling dice? That in itself takes the decision making out of real time. Is your one true way system agnostic? Or are some systems inherently better at allowing the correct way to play?
I'll have to make another video about the way that rule sets help or hinder roleplaying. The long and short of it is that most rules (if you follow them) don't allow you to roleplay. You're constantly having to negotiate with the DM, talk about Fate points / metacurrencies, etc. They're antithetical to the roleplaying. If you want to call them "Un-boardgames" then that's cool. But they're not roleplaying games.
As an amateur theatre actor, director and sometimes teacher, I agree that there are skills involved in roleplaying that can be improved. And that better skills often make for a more enjoyable experience (unless you stress yourself out with perfectionism). And that you need constructive feedback to improve those skills. Role-playing of course is only one part of it. You also need to be good at the "game" part (rules and such) to be a well-rounded roleplaying gamer. BTW, I find the whole terminology in English confusing. In German its "Rollenspiel" - and "Spiel" means game as well as play. Which, IMO, actually puts all elements of this art form into one nice package.
Really, really good insight and exposure. Highlighting the logical fallacy of relativism that is so often peddled to not hurts people's feelings is central to society performing well; same with TTRPGs.
I think anything is valid as long as we recognize that in an RPG, we're doing things that can't be done in one of those quasi-RPG board games or card games. You know the ones where you have a "character" to some extent but it's just a fantasy archetype like "you're the wizard" or you're given or choose the role of a particular detective in a story about several investigators solving a crime. Modern RPGs, usung DnD and similar games as the prototype, do more than this . The characters are unique. They may be like similar characters but are not mere copies. There is also a lot more freedom of action within the rules. It isn't just a chess game where you only control one piece.
If everything is valid; nothing is valid. The instant we put a lens on the topic (that we can do things unavailable to board games) we are weeding out the "anything goes" people.
@StagRPG I get it. If I say "anything goes" or something like that, what I mean is that once you cross a certain threshold of doing something appropriate to the medium, then it's valid. I like a lot of music from punk to opera but some things are still just meaningless noise and some things are music but extremely uncreative. Beneath that threshold, I'd wonder why they don't just play a board game unless they just had some kind of commodity fetish for RPGs or it's a social status symbol in their subculture. If their answer is that they just want a variety of locations I'd recommend getting one with a customizable board or draw their own boards for the same game on poster paper let's say. Thus no pressure to do something they really don't care about anyway and no getting in the way of others LOL. Or card games with more variation of terrain because it's all in your mind randomized by the cards. Or these days any number of simple non-RPG video games with a DnD type aesthetic. But once they have fairly high levels of character specificity and autonomy I'm not going to say that their group's monster hunting or dungeon crawling story preferences are invalid. Or if they just aren't big into improv techniques when narrating. Ultimately I do see it as just "fun" on one level but I'd question why certain things are fun if they don't take advantage of them. Like if you had a bunch of fancy mountain climbing equipment and training and never did anything but climb a gentle hill.
The premise you start off with is false. Saying "There is no wrong way to play" isn't a literal statement. What they are really saying is that "there isn't just one right way to play." Not having rules is the literally the opposite of imposing rules, saying they are the same would be nonsensical. The absence of something can not be the same as the presence of that thing. Saying that "morals are subjective" is an example of "self-defeating logic" is incorrect as it is one of the only two logical conclusions a person can reach in regards to morality. The source of morality is either subjective or it is objective, it can not be both. Either position is an absolute because of the fact that it must be one or the other, there is no other option.
@@StagRPG The goal of all games is obviously to have fun. That isn't what I am taking issue with though. All the examples you used of "self-defeating logic" are not examples of such. You also misrepresented those things.
@@mkklassicmk3895we fundamentally disagree. There are plenty of games people play with a mind for mastery. To say fun is obviously the reason to play means we're fundamentally out of alignment.
@@mkklassicmk3895 Plenty of people play football or soccer or whatever to have fun AND learn teamwork, leadership, discipline, and more. If someone said it's only for fun; they're missing out on a lot of opportunity to get more out of life. So the goal is not obviously to have fun.
@@StagRPG They want to master it because that is fun for them. If they didn't enjoy it then they would not do it. However, like I said, that isn't the part that I am taking issue with. The examples you used for self-defeating logic are not examples of such.
Some people just want to have a silly goose time and that's also okay. Find the group that likes what you like if you are really seeking this kind of deep role-play immersion. That's not always practical for some people. If your group is chill you should always be able to say "I want to run a game that goes really hard on role-play and interesting stories and sets a certain tone do you want to play that kind of game? TTRPGs inherently have an extremely high bar to becoming something that could be considered art. For one thing it borrows so much from various fantasy worlds and existing fiction in order for session preparation to be manageable for the DM. And I think secondly it does not generate income - and therefore the time available to invest will always be limited and the priority secondary to other things. I like that the game doesn't feel elitest, but it's also clear that having certain talents (improv etc.) massively improves your ability to play some facets of RP. I guess I feel you are both right and wrong at the same time it really depends on your goals when playing the game. I don't think a lot of people are trying to quantify the quality of their performance when they play. They are just trying to have fun.
I'm not saying people who have fun are wrong. I'm saying the people who claim "it's just for fun" are wrong because they're ignoring a lot more that TTRPGs have to offer.
While you presented some good points, when you say there's an objectively best way, or optimal way to play, you're also making a quite bold statement, and I say I agree that that's a pretty good way to play, I also recon that it may not be for everyone. Some people may be deeply interested in the character building and optimization, tactical combat and so on. Other people may be interested in power and prestige in the game world, or riches, or anything else. While we may say there's an higher tier of play, the one of immersion, living in the fictional world by means of your character, for some people that could be a lesser goal, or even not fun at all, for some reason or another, and I find it difficult to argue against this. For comparison, let's say someone likes walking, but then someone says martial arts are best, because you not only get better physically, but you also become more agile, flexible, and able to defend and attack yourself, but then the first person just want to walk, or ride a bike, or even play golf or some other not so complete exercise. Who are we to judge? How can we objectively tell the " right way" to play? We can only rank the ways to play if we first established a criteria, but then, each person could have it's own criteria to judge how games should be played, in order to have access to some kind of experience. I had a relative that loved to play a card game that was, to me, so boring and endless, and too much reliant on luck, other people love play bingo, and that to me is just a 100% luck thing with extra steps, but make people think this is a great way to spend an evening. So, I'd say there's no wrong way to play, but there's definitely best ways to play according to what you want from a game.
I would say optimal is getting the most value out of an interest. Fun is absolutely in there. Plus there's a whole lot more that 99% of people leave on the table. (Pun intended.)
If someone says "We're just here to have fun" then I'm out. We're here to have fun AND explore the power of perspective taking and experience the magic of imagination that comes from embodying a character. This video is my way of separating the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.
Awesome analysis. You validated feelings I've had but been unable to articulate. I would love to see an expansion of point 5 and your thoughts on how that works. Being the character while having no real sensory input would really difficult if you couldn't ask the GM questions.
I feel that many of the points in this video assume an inherit absolutism in the topics that it refutes. I do not think those points are commonly assumed to be contextualess holy mandate. In fact, I think most reasonable people understand that collaborative social activities are not meant to be so freeform that any expression whatsoever is equally valid. I have never seen anyone suggest that. Perhaps with the exception of children. I know that may sound like an insult, but genuinely that is the one example I can think of where this would be applicable. Have I misunderstood the target audience for this video? If so, I apologize.
@@StagRPG Kenney is a guy who played at my table for about 4 years until circumstances forced me to move. I met up again with him a couple of years ago, but life is still getting in the way of having a regular session. I use him to explain 'The Kenny's of the world." People who want to play; want to game; but struggle. Some struggle do to reading issues or comprehension issues, others struggle against the various stigmas often put on our hobby. They spent years being told it was 'weird or dumb or stupid'. Some players are special needs; others are verging on special needs; you know? I watched Kenny reading the core books and it was painful, and yet, he kept reading and asking questions. How do I do this: How did you do that! But eventually, his confidence grew and so did his role playing. It took time and patience and a willingness to be given the chance to play and to grow.
But there are people out there who 'wouldn't waste their time' on the Kenny's of the world. But then, maybe its just me and I'm wrong and they're right. I don't believe that there is a 'right' or 'wrong' way to play, and yet, I am a stanch believer in 'the games have rules, structure, and purpose. Use them.' What I often seem to fail expressing or getting across to 'some' people, is that while I embrace full immersion, I will never 'ban' or 'refuse' someone who wants to play; wants to learn; and is trying to do both, you know? What makes many RPGs special as a game, is in the very fact that you can sit 10 Game Masters' down at a table and get 10 different views and implication of said rules. From strict to nearly non-existent, and if that table's occupants are having fun; are engaged in 'their play', then how is that wrong? And if you and I and Crispy and a couple of others played a deeply immersive game, had fun doing so and were engaged while at the table, then for our table, the system worked as we wanted it to do so. Of course, this is all my opinion... such that it is.
It’s a game - just a game. Games have rules and structure. but there is nothing at stake at your game except the enjoyment of the players. We DM must find that sweet spot between guardrails, rules, structure and sanboxing.
I see it kind of like: "This big old gold nugget is a paperweight. Just a paperweight." Sure. You can treat it that way, but you might be missing a lot that it has to offer. Yeah, I'm not saying it's not a game; but there's a lot more to games than meet the eye.
Sorry I got to the party late; it's been a busy past few weeks for me. I suppose I have been pretty vocal about there being no "true way" to enjoy role-playing games. I don't really have much interest in convincing the die-hards that their way is just the way that is right for them. If strict character performance in real time is what's working for you, then great for you. However, to paraphrase Clifford Geertz, just because that approach is so enjoyable and rewarding to you that you have "clothed it in such an aura of factuality that it has come to seem uniquely realistic." Personally, I am also in favor of playing from the perspective of a character that is autochthonous to the shared imagined setting, rather than a hodge-podge of fantasy tropes, and ones own worldview/mindset. I, too, prefer players to just run their characters without constant asides, although "real time" is certainly not the only time played out in RPGs. The use of "constant questions" has tended to be a sticking point between me and the 4D'ers. From my perspective, that last part seems to stem from the 4D players not caring about the depth of the shared imagined space within which play will occur. As near as I can tell, whatever whim they have for their character can be played out as it arises; and, as long as it doesn't contradict the basic thematic framework, or any previously established details, then they just go with it and let the collaborative narrative work everything out in the end. For character performers, that's fine; it doesn't work for me as a motivation to play these games. I need a world with established coherence, consistency, and continuity within which to enact these character decisions. I need a world that provides definite obstacles, and constraints upon character choice; moreover, I need those obstacles and constraints to have ontological priority, not just details made up in the moment, willy-nilly, because they happened to serve what a player wanted to have their character say or do. I do understand that all of us are using our experiences as inspiration to create these worlds; however, I cannot abide playing in a world that is cobbled together into an amalgamation of whatever fantasy tropes have been absorbed by the collaborating players. In the grand scheme of playing RPGs, I do not care how immersed the other players are in their characters; as long as they're paying attention to the cues of the shared imagined space, and the other players, then they can be immersed or not to suit their own needs. I’m a social scientist, not an artist; I don’t need a lot kibbitzing or internal anguish to posit an individual comprised of acculturation, enculturation, and personality/temperament that is rooted in a fictional, but well-reasoned, shared imagined setting. At worst, I’m reductively applying an array of Durkheimian social facts as a proxy for an individuated being; but, I definitely do not need a sense of internal drama to make that being’s decisions comport with that postulated array of social facts. I don't encourage people to ask a lot of "am I allowed to" questions; but, to the extent that it nearly impossible to share every sensible detail I, as the GM, know about a location, I do expect players to ask clarifying questions about that environment. I'm not opposed to players adding materials and/or concepts to the world; but, with the exception of fairly mundane, situation-appropriate items that have little potential to affect play, those things need to be decided between sessions, not during them. I'll add my own analogy here. One of my other hobbies is mountain biking; I often ride in fairly to extremely difficult terrain. I have a friend who likes to ride; but, he only rides on the fairly maintained gravel trails of the larger local and state parks. They have lots of elevation changes, and are off-road in the sense that they’re not overly manicured, and aredefinitely not paved bike paths; but, they do not provide much in the way of technical challenges. Is my friend not a “real” mountain biker? Instead of enjoying the occasional leisurely ride in the company of a friend, should I take his bike from him, and tell them unless he’s willing to ride the more challenging courses, then he shouldn’t be allowed to have a mountain bike? I ride difficult mountain trails, where the only maintenance is provided by other hobbyists; but, I don’t participate in “trials” competitions, which all about difficult technical challenges. Should a competitive trials rider take my bike from me? To quote Gary Gygax, from his 1989 book _Master of the Game: Principles and Techniques for Becoming and Expert Role-Playing Game Master,_ in a chapter entitled “The Philosophy of the Grand Master”: _It is absolutely necessary to understand the only valid purpose for role-playing games. The games exist to provide entertainment. Entertainment is basically fun._ If two people want to play a Civil War game, by taking on the roles of Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee, based on nothing more than some Hollywood entertainment they’ve consumed, and they have fun doing it, then who are we to diminish or dismiss the qualitative reward that play had to those two players. Just because there’s no wrong way to enjoy playing tabletop RPGs, as long as you’re enjoying the experience, it does not mean that every style of play is right for you, or should be the way you play at your table. Anyway, the bottom line is at the cash register. Regardless of how we feel about the ways other people are playing these games, or even promoting particular ways of playing these games, as long as they keep funding the TTRPG industry, there will still be new games, and new players of those games, coming into the hobby. If people want to spend their free time trying to “gatekeep” how the hobby is practiced, then bless their hearts; I just see it as another form of role-playing game. In the end, those new players are just going to gravitate toward the ways of playing that appeal most to them; and, those players already using those approaches, will be there to provide them with tips and tricks they have developed over the years. Regards!
@@StagRPG I really do enjoy the discussion. I know a lot of the 4D folks just give me a "thumbs down," and move on; that's always seemed a shame to me, because there ultimately is a lot of overlap between our expectations of what play should look/feel like when the time for discussion is set aside for actually playing at the table with others. Best!
@@Archaeo_Matt Yeah, I think my main point is that the folks who are "fun is the point" die-hards are missing a lot that roleplaying has to offer. Social skills, creativity, imagination development, etc. There are lots beyond the 'fun' box that most folks decide to stick to. So I wanted to make a video that challenged that head-on. Another angle is if you aren't interested in roleplaying; call it something different. Storytelling game, wargaming, adventure gaming; whatever. But dang do a lot of people who call it a roleplaying game refuse to roleplay even a little bit. Beyond weird to me.
@@StagRPG I get that. My workaround has been to challenge definitions of fun that just speak to personal enjoyment, whereas fun derives more from joint hedonic satisfaction, and is more other-referential than personal pleasure. I did a video on the broader nature of fun, but it's not been very popular with RUclips. In terms of naming...I probably would prefer to go with "adventure gaming," with no intent to cut role-playing out of the list of expectations. Much like why I use TTRPG, it sort of boils down to using the nomenclature that most of the potential audience recognizes. One of the shortcomings of using "role-playing" is that computer RPGs have muddied that water. I don't think either of us would use terms like: healer, tank, DPS'er, or jack-of-all-trades; but, those are now firmly, and legitimately (at least in CRPG terms), part of the zeitgeist as "roles" to be performed within a role-playing game. I think the way forward has to be a focus how to get people to want to play characters that are something other than just an extension of the self projected into a fictionalized setting. I mainly respond to always being able to find more of not just the lore, but the imagined physical presence of the world and its contents, as dig beyond the surface descriptions. On the other hand, I also think the majority of players don't care that much about the authenticity of the world, just that it doesn't do anything to break their immersion in the more immediate action of the decisions to be made during the game session. EDIT: I thought I was subscribed to you already, but just notice I wasn't. I think I've mostly just seen your Posts on home page up till now. So, I'll be a new subscriber to make up for one of the lost ones....
@@Archaeo_Matt I really appreciate that you went out of your way to acknowledge that fun isn't intrinsic to mere game mechanics, THAT is what I've been missing in so many of these replies! Cheers, one of those 4D guys lol.
I always thought, that 'play however you want' or 'there is no better or worse way of playing' is not a 'rule', but just a statement, that gets rid of people saying I should be doing it their way, cause their way of playing RPG is "the correct one". I don't think there is "a correct one", because not everyone is able to play on the same level of commitment(?). Also - the 'no rules' approach is ok in some cases. For example as a short experiment, to check what will happen, what will change and what will be discovered, that otherwise would stay hidden. As for the 'play for fun' approach - I think that in free time everyone should do whatever they want. There is no need to constantly improve yourself (said that - I love improving myself constantly in my free time, but I don't think this is for everybody). The 'do whatever you want' however, ruins the experience. If you play with specific character, you should feel it and try to act like one. If you want 'play however you want' with it, just make the character you want to play, and act accordingly! And when you want to change the way you behave, talk to your GM and ask for character change! Otherwise it is just stupid and insulting to the GM and to the rest of the group. A ruleset, a discipline - that are 'fun makers'. RPG is fun when it's challenging. It is fun because of the rules you should obey. It is fun, because you can evolve and master the craft, and every time you do it, you reach the next level of fun. So - play as you like, but I will play my way. The way I consider the correct way (and I think writing that I agree with what you say). The 'every way is good' is a very good statement, because some people that don't want to share deeper experience and don't want to make effort will leave you alone and won't argue anymore ;)
Perma-DM here (have been DMing for the past 6-ish years by this point, across 3 campaigns) (I am specifically going to be referring to D&D 5e here, and I am not too well versed in other systems, and lack the ethos) Kind of an L take here in this video. I'll address your points one by one Self Defeating Logic: This argument tends to be pedantic, it is like the paradox of tolerance where "a truly tolerant society cannot, itself, tolerate intolerance". Such linguistic paradoxes don't exactly have any substance behind them. The False Promise: Roleplaying, like other forms of art, have value that is always relative to the artist, and to the observer. Much like how a 6 year old's hand-turkey might be seen as more valuable by that kid's mother than a painting by a 3rd year art student, even if the average observer might have a different evaluation, and may critically analyze the latter as "better". But in D&D, the observers of the roleplaying are the DM and the other players, not a wider audience (unless it is something like a Critical Role situation). This begs the question. Even if the roleplaying is subpar (based on either arbitrary or relative standards), why should the player *need* to improve? While I do think that the game is generally more fun when the roleplaying is good, it entirely depends on the play group. Some players don't want to put in the work to improve, and that is okay so long as they aren't trying to join some game with an emphasis on immersive roleplaying. Some players just want to show up on a Saturday afternoon and play some D&D and hang out with friends for a few hours while cracking jokes and talking about their week. This is fine. It doesn't make the D&D any less "valid". Perspective Taking: Method actors are PAID to do act. D&D players aren't PAID to play (again, not really counting Critical Role). Actors have a market pressure to improve their craft. I am experienced in this style of roleplaying (to the point where I once was able to have a heated debate in-character, defending an idea with cohesive arguments that I myself disagreed with irl). But while every DM has the right to choose who sits at their table, but I wouldn't want to ever put that kind of pressure on one of my players (for a similar result to the analogy, you would need to have a player's spot at the table be contingent on their skill in immersive roleplaying). I kick players only rarely, and only for real problems, not because they aren't as engaged as some of the other players or myself. The Intelligence Gate: I don't see your point. Sure, not everyone can be an amazing roleplayer, and as you said, that is fine. But how does that prevent people from improving if they want to?? I actually find that the opposite effect happens. The Mercer Effect (Last time bringing up Critical Role, I promise). So many new D&D players that saw Mercer DMing during the pandemic, expect most D&D games to be like that, not realizing that they have professional writers, and voice actors there that are PAID to act. The Way Forward: I don't see the issue with the players staying at that kid level. Like you said, they are running around "having fun" (which is the primary goal for D&D. If the game is not fun, it fails to be a game). I do acknowledge that some approaches are better than others, but there is not a one-size fits all. Every game should be tailored to its players, to maximize the fun for them. For example, one could have a D&D game that is all about combat, with basically no roleplaying with progressively harder and harder bosses that take high level strategy and coordination to defeat, while another campaign might have very little combat, focusing more on roleplaying and character-driven narratives. Some will have a focus on exploration of a world, some will have a combination of the 3. Notably, not every player should be at every table. But there should be a table for every player (so long as someone is willing to run that table) In conclusion, I defend "Play how you want" because it IS true (so long as everyone is having fun at a table appropriate for the game they want to play). The opposite of fun is boredom. Boredom arises when the game becomes a chore. If a player wants to improve their roleplaying, it should be a pursuit they take on their own volition, not because of a social pressure, as that can make it a chore. If you say that better roleplaying makes the game "better", I will ask you: "Better for whom, specifically? The player that improved? Perhaps, if they were capable of such levels of roleplaying and are able to do so without it becoming a chore. Better for the DM? Maybe, but the DM's fun ALWAYS comes secondary to the players' fun. Feel free to reply. I am definitely willing to have a civil discussion.
Saying there is no wrong way to play is semantically identical to saying there is no way to play. If a game is anything at all, then a game is nothing but the sum of its rules.
@@LLMTest1024 I'm not reading all that but I know what it says after the first sentence. It just goes to show both the general illiteracy of gamers and also how many other so-called game designers don't actually know what a game is. As to story. There is no story. A story is something that is told from a particular point of view to describe a series of events. What happens at the table is events based on player and NPC actions. The game has no story. Stories are told by players after the fact. No two are the same.
@@StagRPG So you agree with me now? Great. There is no experience without following a rule. It's experiencing the outcome of a process. Anything else is just making things up. And just making things up is not an experience and not a game.
As an art form? You may take it too seriously. Method actors in dnd tend to be a problem. It's a game. try your best. try to get better, sure. If you are not having fun. dont play.
@@StagRPG Random Chaos is no good but I must admit the fantasy milieu has lead us into more light hearted adventures than grim dark, though I like both.
@@biffstrong1079 And I'm not saying the tone can't be enjoyable or lighthearted. It's simply that roleplaying has merit beyond fun. Fun as the focus misses the point.
Might as well as be quoting Rush with their line "If you chose not to decide you still have made a choice". And which I say "DUH!" Everyone knows that. You aren't giving new insight into the world. No one is sitting there like "OMG You can't call the rule that you can play the way you want a rule, how dare you!"
I don't defend "play as you want", but you make a flawed assumption that TTRPGs should be about "real role playing" The term "role playing game" was controversial when it first became popular. D&D and other games didn't originally use that term, and when it became popular, many complained that "I'm not 'role playing' when I do this. I'm playing a strategy game, I'm playing an open ended adventure game, but I'm not 'role playing" my character beyond deciding their actions"
@@StagRPG No, it is an assumption. Every argument in the video is based on the assumption that this underlying premise true, yet at no point is an argument made to defend this assumption. In TTRPGs you take on a "role", and from that perspective you are always "role-playing", but for the the majority gaming systems it has never been about full out "real role-playing" like you describe. To suggest that your style is factually "better" is rediculous, and if you want to go down that path, then you would need to create a video that explains WHY and HOW your style is better than other options.
So i 100% disagree with this but i think its because you are thinking of a specific person/people/situation that i dont know about. Currently, it kinda sounds like your saying a lot of things that are true to "prove" what your trying to say but without proper context it just sounds like "The way i play is the correct way and you are wrong for doing anything different".... In a creative space...
@StagRPG so there is no reason for this video? You just saw this be said, came up with an interpretation, didn't talk to anyone about it, then made a video against it? If there is more context I would like to know, otherwise the only proof I need is the fact that I and my friends are having fun.
What a bunch of nonsense, the rejection of a realism stance does not automatically lead to the proclamation of a relativism stance. If you want to get philosophical, then better do next time proper homework and account for a moral anti-realism stance too. The second point is a strawman, since nobody says just because there multiple ways to have fun that all ways are equally good for everybody. You even bring the example of an art exhibit, and were also nobody hangs a childs work next to a classical master of the arts, but you know very well that there are many different styles that all can be art and not just one. Point #3 is really funny, since you fail to understand the perspective of people you are arguing against, which is why you rely on fallacies, like the false dichotomy on the first point ad the strawman on the second. I don't understand your fourth point. Is that an attempt to look smart? If so, then you have already proven with first three points that this is not the case since you fail your own standard with regarding the third point. Regarding your fifth point, well, that is just, like, your opinion, man. Just like the martial arts you mention, there are more than one style and so no single true way to do martial arts. And no, I am not angry, I have seen this arrogant nonsense so often that it only saddens me. I mean sure, if you want a highly tactical game to feel smart, then sure there is a best way to achieve that, or if you want in character immersion then there are techniques that make that easier to achieve, but some people want a narrative experience and not a tactical, and others want to get immersed in the narrative as a whole and not just in their character, and those are not lesser forms of roleplay or even not true roleplay. So, get down from your high horse, and maybe learn about other styles, so that you can actually define your own personal style and understand that it is just a preference you hold and not some cosmic truth how to engage with the hobby.
quite frankly, i think the rise in popularity thanks to Stranger Things and a certain youtube show has been a massive negative for the TTRPG community. the popularity has lead to people who don't actually care about TTRPGs to get deeply involved because its popular and they are worse than the grognards of old (and i say that as someone who prefers roleplaying every single time).
Confused or frustrated by this video? Go download this free PDF, give it a read, and then come back. www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/411975/how-to-roleplay-the-hard-way?affiliate_id=279721?affiliate_id=4316964
This is a VERY good book. It can not be recommended strongly enough.
@@aaronabel4756 🤝
PRESENTATION: I have encountered this argument before, and I partially agree. There are ways of gaming as a player that lead to a more immersive, fulfilling role play experience (for me and possibly others). To insist that if people do not play that way is inferior form of gaming, is goading emotion. Emotional people are too busy emoting to listen. Intentionally upsetting the audience you are trying to reach is counter productive to your message. All of these judgements are made by setting yourself up as 'the authority'. This presents you as having the definitive guide on superior role playing. There is no room in this message for you to learn and grow or to accept that you could be wrong. This comes off like you have reached the pinnacle of the hobby and you are dictating to those beneath you. It looks very arrogant. So if people are angry, it might not be what you said, but how you said.
STYLE: I like the martial arts analogy, but I feel it has been presented with very little scope. If one take a Karate class, your analogy fits. However there are many different styles of martial arts, and different techniques with in those styles. You may not like them, you may devalue them, but they exist, and ignoring them does not strengthen your premise. Your premise assumes there is only one style of RP you can be a master in. Just like fighting styles, there are numerous RP styles and people can gain a measure of mastery in that. A master of Karate, or Boxing, or HEMA, will stomp your ass just as flat. A player who plays their style well is a superior role player. Most, if they play a lot of games, put a lot of time into the hobby, most players will end in a similar place that you describe. Just like there are only so many ways the human body can move, in Martial Arts, there are ways to be more effective and efficient in your RP. As you gain experience in either you strip things that are style from things that are fundamentals.
PLAY: This feels like an audition for people who want to play at your table. Which is fine, finding a group that fist the style you most want to play is great. Most of us play for fun, with our friends, and very very few put the time in to gain the mastery you are talking about. We are full grown adults with busy lives playing 'make believe' with dice, and laughing with people we get to see rarely. To insist that this is the best way for people to play with their imagination, the best way to direct their thoughts, is impertinent to the player.
I appreciate your comment. `Intentionally upsetting the audience you are trying to reach is counter productive to your message` I'd never want the people who are calling me names and belittling me at my table. I'm making sure we don't waste each other's time; they are not my audience. I'm trying to reach the people who are in philosophical alignment.
"This presents you as having the definitive guide on superior role playing." I'm the definitive guide on how I see things. My channel can only present my perspective. If it were any other way, I'm being disingenuous.
"This feels like an audition for people who want to play at your table." Fair enough; the funny part is that I play solo 99.9% of the time. I'm not at a stage in my life where I can commit time to group play. (that's why the channel is called "rolling stag")
I appreciate your good faith engagement with the video! Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
"You're saying this plate of dog crap isn't fine dining? And you're not even a chef?!"
I'm not dictating how other people play. I'm helping shine a light for others who might feel the same way, but not understand it yet.
"No wrong way to play" is the gaming equivalent of "do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law".
Yeah, I'm not playing with Crowley. Ha!
I appreciate the balls this took to make this video. TTRPGs have gotten to a level of toxic positivity that I hardly interact with anyone outside of my circle because I tend to have pretty similar view points as your video and I just do not wanna have that argument with other at my favorite LGS much less in the comments section of the internet. Genuinely great job on the video!
Thanks for the support. Your comment illustrates exactly why I made this one. 🙏
Toxic positivity! That’s exactly it. You have to be excited about the new things and about every new campaign and session regardless of quality. Otherwise, you’re anti-fun!
@@flamezombie1 Pelor forbid you have a criticism.
@@StagRPG keep it up boss, you have a subscriber in me
@@ForrTheXP 🙏
You can make whatever noise you wan with whatever musical instrument, but I won't invite you to join my band.
Excellent way to put it.
The amount of musicians who don't know this is small !
You are excellent at something most of us in this sphere of RPGs are not: brevity!
I would have taken probably 30 minutes to say everything you did in 5. I think this warrants a video response because there's some really valuable stuff here about why we even care about RPGs in the first place.
I appreciate it! 🙏 Tag me in the reply; I'm looking forward to it.
I would love to play fully immersed in roleplay someday, but the level of skill and the relaxed nature friends play like means they do very simple face-value roleplaying, and combat akin to a videogame, looking at what the sheet says they can do, and doing strictly that.
Yeah, I'm in a similar situation where I have zero ability to commit to any kind of schedule. (Hence my framing this channel as a solo endeavor) Tough to get out side our circles, isn't it?
Agh, I know your pain. I try to explain in terms of “look, imagine you could design any mods you wanted for the game on the fly. You don’t have to wait for someone to code it”
Sometimes that helps them get the form
There is a scattering of people interested in taking the immersion a step further. They typically have to meet online ...
The first half of the video I can agree with, but for me to follow you further I would need a more clear definition of what “roleplay” is from your perspective. Also, critically evaluating if something is good or bad / better or worse requires knowing what the goal of the thing is. My goal when playing TTRPG’s is not deep character immersion. If that excludes me from what you view as a TTRPG, then I’m okay if we are separated. In the same way I have no interested in learning the flute (despite it probably being very rewarding to those who learn it), I am quite content knowing how to play guitar and piano.
It's not that it excludes you; it's that it closes the door to getting more out of what role playing has to offer us as people.
Wow what a great video. Having everyone admit this is impossible of course. This is the biggest reason to vet your players.
Couldn't agree more. Glad you enjoyed it!
Point 5 - Agreed. ... with a caveat.
It is my experience that even the most reluctant to role play find themselves playing a role at one level or another with time and encouragement. My friend Kenny has poor reading and comprehension skills, and yet, he loves to play the game(s). He has his preferred classes, etc, and embraces them. And more often than not, when things are deep and intense at the table, his character shines.
The longer he played, the less questions and confirmations he required, but they still happened.
I've had more than a few players who, for one reason or another, would not or could not (or both), engage in any role play that most of us would accept. He was often blunt, using one word replies whenever possible, and asking questions out of character. I'd 'softly' remind him of that. He played for about a year and never understood (more than likely, he struggled with feeling 'stupid' or 'weird' while speaking as character while in character) why the rest of us got so immersed.
Yeah, it's tough to vet folks retroactively.
@@StagRPG Sometimes it's more than that: For example, I have found myself at various points in my life, in gaming deserts if you will. There were simply a very limited pool of players to pull from. What do you do then? Simply not play? Or, do you sit down with people and play?
When I was young, I lived in a small town, with two friends, one who liked RPGs, the other liked War Games. So, I learned to play and run both. Occasionally we'd get a 'new kid', but the pool was still very limited until we reached High School.
I also ran games while doing a little time. I don't like talking about that part of my life, but I've had cold faced killers (convicted ones mind) sharing my table. One even bought the 4th edition rules, about 10 books at one go, tried to DM for awhile and then asked me to do it instead.
So, yeah....
@@yourseatatthetable yeah, the season of life I'm in means I play solo 99.9% of the time, but I take your point.
@@StagRPG It's been a bit since I last played solo. 3 or 4 months I think, but it's mainly playing for videos showing the game I've spent 20 years working on. I really miss running play-by-posts on DnD beyond, but after WoTc bought it up, I dropped my membership. I've tried finding other platforms but haven't had any luck so far.
Remember- your version of fun may vary.
yep
A LOT of grain of salts need to be taken with this one. You can already see elitists bloating their ego as we speak.
When people say there are no "right" way to play it does not mean there are no "wrong" harmful way to play. It just means there are no "one size fit all". Because not everyone play for same goal or has same expectation toward gaming.
Just like your martial arts analogy, it actually perfect. Some just train for fun, some to excercise, some to develop character and disciplibe, some to defense themselves and some to compete in sport. They are all valid, but none are sole correct choice.
Yet some train to be better at harming others, to violate others, to find excuse to fight, to con people, to brag they did, to valid their flawed philosophy.
These are harmful goal and motive that are "wrong" to pursuit. No one single right way does not mean no wrong way. But also does not means everyone should aim to be champion or listed weapon.
It means you should find, or made, a group that match your level. If you feel too small for a pond you should seek bigger pond or dig one yourself, not complaining how other fishes are too weak or the pond is too small.
You could, and should, encourage them to try and grow bigger, stronger. But you have no ethic right or moral high ground to pressure them or guilt tripping them into doing so. Least by internet validation.
Thank you for your comment.
While I broadly agree with the points being made here, I think it's worth remembering that the 'there's no wrong way to play' attitude came into being as a reaction to the extreme opposite. We had, arguably, a couple of generations of highly pretenscious gate keepers who not only imposed a lot of attitudes, but did so with out any particular insight, imposing them largely as a matter of convention and common preferences.
We should definately nurture and respect the drive to generate art, but at the same time we need to make sure we don't recreate a distain for finger painting.
Finger painting, yes. Glue eating, no.
@StagRPG No real need to get derisive about it. There's nothing actually wrong about just screwing around with friends.
@@BunniRabbi I'm agreeing with you to the extent that fun is fun. The difference is saying fun is the sole focus, or only value of playing. So I'm cool with the fun players. I'm not cool with the "only fun" players.
@StagRPG I am, but likewise they need to accept that there are other kinds. To that end, I feel like we should encourage terminology that distinguishes the two sorts of players, in order to facilitate communication when setting up games.
"Are you a roleplayer, or nah?"
Wait...So you mean we shouldn't waste everyone's' time by goofing off for 3/4s of the session. Or. adding inclusive everything isn't just another waste of my life...?
-N.I.P. (Non Interested Player)
"What would my character do right now?"
"What is my character even doing here?"
-G.N. (Game Novelist)...
"You smell frustration and hear metal grinding on your agency as you turn around you see the train as it slams into you and carries you off to the next encounter. What do you want to do? Go ahead and roll a d20 and tell me what you get."
-Good Times. Same time next week? ...
A goal of anyone's session should be the attempt to stay in harmony with the table, tone, and setting. Results should be memorable.
@StagRPG ...my computer was on dark mode or something. When I went to comment the text was blended into the background...couldn't see it...once that was established, I edited.
Good video by the way. Entertained I was.
The problem with this framing is that it's only a problem in your perspective... which is fine, but when you're at table that enjoys goofing off and you're the one sitting there being sour about it, it should be a sign that their table isn't for you, not the other way around.
@Jo_youwhatmate ...I agree. I was joking around about the things that I like and don't like.
99.9% of games are exactly that. Jokes and Safe words.
-The atrocious example is yet another way people endure RPGs.
-The suggestion at the end is the nugget of info worth anything that should be usable for any situation.
Like my comment, jokes are not universally funny. For example...you probably wouldn't come see my set. You vetted me.
Vetting is the most important thing before you commit.
There can be anomalies that happen but mostly you want to know what you are signing up for. Love is not blind when your eyes work.
Full disclosure...I am a giant advocate for "different groups do different things" and argue for that fact. There is no "right" way to do things. There "is" though the way that "i" like to try to play.
Sorry for dropping an insult to your intelligence...("insult to your intelligence" is not saying your dumb...its actually a complement that you are smart and my comment was dumb and it forced you to correct me.)
@Jo_youwhatmate Not today, Satan.
Spot on... Good luck because nobody ever listens to me when I say this sort of thing. The rules bring structure; they give both starting points and means to progress, pretty much in any direction you'd like. So, on one hand you can, indeed, play your game any way YOU want to play it, but it's still a game, with rules; with structure; with purpose.
It's similar to the 'absolutists' role-players. i.e. people who are pushing the rules and structure aside to embrace their concepts of total immersion.
It doesn't help that it's hard to expression our opinions without cheesing off self-proclaimed purists.
I like looking for those few magical systems that are super capable while staying out of the way of the experience. Traveller being one; same mechanic for everything, basically. Not a lot of "which minigame should I be using right now?" It's all 2d6 over 8+ in the vast majority of situations. Simple.
@@StagRPG I played the first edition back in the late 70's, early 80's when I wasn't running Space Opera. I enjoyed the character creations system that Traveler uses.
Hey, I have come to politely disagree.
I fully agree that the sentence: “there are no right way to play TTRPGs” may insinuate that there is neither a wrong way to play TTRPGs.
So let me rephrase the sentence.
“There is no one right way to play TTRPGs.” There fixed it.
I agree that your idea of TTRPGs is fun, I love role playing, but I also know it isn’t for everyone. Not because they cannot comprehend the idea, but if they are not comfortable with it or other any reason.
My favourite type of game is the one where you roleplay, and then, by accident break character, notice that it’s a human being in-front of you, and then roleplay again. Like Adventures of Azarim or Tales of The Misfits, by Viva La Dirt League.
But in the end, I will also leave my own opinion on the best way to play. With a carefully crafted story, unique homebrewed creatures and the one rule that vetoes any other: if even one player finds a subject uncomfortable, that subject shall not come up.
I understand that life isn’t always easy, and some days you want to play as the character, imagining this grand world that you escape into. And other days you just want to meta game a tiny bit to feel badass and in control of something in your existence.
One isn’t less right because of the title of the game, one doesn’t give its players a worse experience.
I tell you, the GM is the one that makes a good or a bad experience. The GM and then the players, and who knows, maybe we will roleplay.
Thanks for reading.
Best regards- Benjamin
I appreciate you being cordial. The thing I want to point out is that you are changing what I said, and then disagreeing with that.
What are your thoughts about the things I said, as presented?
@ I am sorry, I think I then might have misunderstood you.
Your point is that the right way to play TTRPGs are through good roleplay, correct?
If not, please tell me, I would love to understand your point of view :)’
Show me examples of people roleplaying in their roleplaying games. Find actual plays where that's happening. 99% of people don't roleplay. Then they say they're having fun and that fun is the only thing that matters. I'm saying those people are wrong.
@@StagRPG I might have miss clicked and not sent the message. I f I didn’t, then I am sorry to double ping you, I rarely use the RUclips comment section.
I personally agree that a good story/roleplaying makes TTRPGs more enjoyable. But I also know not everyone plays TTRPGs to experience the epic high fantasy world, some play sandbox games, and I don’t think that is less right.
I will also say that I find it fun to break character. Breaking the fourth wall lets you see that the person on the other side of the table indeed is a human and not Baradune the previous high sorcerer who was falsely banished and so on.
Two examples of real campaigns that does this well are Tales of the Misfits for a campaign that leans further towards roleplaying, and Adventures of Azerim that leans more towards comedy roleplay and breaking character when a player makes a mistake.
So I might have written it badly at first, and maybe again, but I disagree that the people who doesn’t roleplay does something wrong, and isn’t getting the best out of the game. The question should rather be if it’s the best for the individual player and not generally, it’s actually really hard to make a generalised statement. :)’
@@benja_0105 The people I'm disagreeing with are the people who "only" play for fun, and then turn around and say fun is the goal / reason to play. Nope. No thank you. I'm not going to play inside the confines of someone else's lack of imagination.
Some people want to dance. I want to Tango.
But we can all participate in dancing as a social activity and moving our bodies to the music. But not everybody can Tango.
At least in Roleplaying. I'm a horrible dancer. But I created this analogy to show the distinction in skill when it comes to roleplaying, and what I'm aiming for when I want to join a Roleplay session.
This way, I can proverbially "sign up" to the "right" dancing class.
Amen!
1:40 They are valid expressions, but the quality and expertise gap is astronomical. That's what we keep saying, your experience at your table when you play just for fun is 100% valid and if that's what you want then keep doing it, it's just that it's mostly not roleplay and that's objective.
In other art forms we have some conventional terminology and varied contexts for these different practices. We need something like that for rpgs. Like the way we understand that professional artists are doing something different than when people are making art as a hobby.
@@BunniRabbi adventure gaming would be a good term for the relaxed, just for fun approach to RPGs I think
@EteraRPG I don't know, I think the more serious rpg play is often enough centered on adventure too, so I don't know if that would stick. That being said, if you have an rpg not focused on an adventure I do think that's more likely to be in that non-casual catagory.
@@BunniRabbiThat’s part of what we’re trying to do with the 1D-4D classification model. Have a framework for what dimension you’re playing in, and at least encourage people to write social contracts.
@flamezombie1 Terminology that contains a pejorative implication is less likely to be accepted. I do appreciate the idea of taking on the contract idea.
Will you do a video about the game part of roleplaying games as well?
That's on the list, and I can move it up the ranks. Thanks for letting me know you're interested! 🙏
You can only get so broad in your philosophical pondering before they lose all meaning. What do you mean to say is the correct way to play ttrpgs? Most of the “no wrong way,” idea comes from the fact that the most prolific rpg (Dungeons and Dragons) has like 900 pages of “core” rulebooks.
Most of the debates about “how to play,” center around rules minutiae, the use of paraphernalia like miniatures or VTTs, or the endless “railroading v sandbox,” debate.
So, what are you advocating for?
How far into the video did you get?
@@StagRPGI watched the whole thing. It’s 6 minutes long and not as intellectually challenging as you seem to think.
Full immersion, real time decision making, yada yada…but how does that apply to the game elements of the game. Are you still rolling dice? That in itself takes the decision making out of real time. Is your one true way system agnostic? Or are some systems inherently better at allowing the correct way to play?
I'll have to make another video about the way that rule sets help or hinder roleplaying. The long and short of it is that most rules (if you follow them) don't allow you to roleplay. You're constantly having to negotiate with the DM, talk about Fate points / metacurrencies, etc. They're antithetical to the roleplaying. If you want to call them "Un-boardgames" then that's cool. But they're not roleplaying games.
As an amateur theatre actor, director and sometimes teacher, I agree that there are skills involved in roleplaying that can be improved. And that better skills often make for a more enjoyable experience (unless you stress yourself out with perfectionism). And that you need constructive feedback to improve those skills.
Role-playing of course is only one part of it. You also need to be good at the "game" part (rules and such) to be a well-rounded roleplaying gamer.
BTW, I find the whole terminology in English confusing. In German its "Rollenspiel" - and "Spiel" means game as well as play. Which, IMO, actually puts all elements of this art form into one nice package.
I'm always impressed at the German language's ability to have the perfect term for so many situations.
Really, really good insight and exposure. Highlighting the logical fallacy of relativism that is so often peddled to not hurts people's feelings is central to society performing well; same with TTRPGs.
I think it's reason is to not hurt people's feelings as a surface excuse. At its core it's all about controlling and silencing people.
@@StagRPG Yes, very good point. (Like so much elsewhere in society perhaps?)
@@kiwiviking175 🎯
I think anything is valid as long as we recognize that in an RPG, we're doing things that can't be done in one of those quasi-RPG board games or card games.
You know the ones where you have a "character" to some extent but it's just a fantasy archetype like "you're the wizard" or you're given or choose the role of a particular detective in a story about several investigators solving a crime.
Modern RPGs, usung DnD and similar games as the prototype, do more than this . The characters are unique. They may be like similar characters but are not mere copies.
There is also a lot more freedom of action within the rules. It isn't just a chess game where you only control one piece.
If everything is valid; nothing is valid. The instant we put a lens on the topic (that we can do things unavailable to board games) we are weeding out the "anything goes" people.
@StagRPG
I get it. If I say "anything goes" or something like that, what I mean is that once you cross a certain threshold of doing something appropriate to the medium, then it's valid. I like a lot of music from punk to opera but some things are still just meaningless noise and some things are music but extremely uncreative.
Beneath that threshold, I'd wonder why they don't just play a board game unless they just had some kind of commodity fetish for RPGs or it's a social status symbol in their subculture.
If their answer is that they just want a variety of locations I'd recommend getting one with a customizable board or draw their own boards for the same game on poster paper let's say.
Thus no pressure to do something they really don't care about anyway and no getting in the way of others LOL.
Or card games with more variation of terrain because it's all in your mind randomized by the cards. Or these days any number of simple non-RPG video games with a DnD type aesthetic.
But once they have fairly high levels of character specificity and autonomy I'm not going to say that their group's monster hunting or dungeon crawling story preferences are invalid. Or if they just aren't big into improv techniques when narrating.
Ultimately I do see it as just "fun" on one level but I'd question why certain things are fun if they don't take advantage of them. Like if you had a bunch of fancy mountain climbing equipment and training and never did anything but climb a gentle hill.
@@EdwardHaas-e8x good analogy!
@@StagRPG
Thanks!
The premise you start off with is false.
Saying "There is no wrong way to play" isn't a literal statement. What they are really saying is that "there isn't just one right way to play."
Not having rules is the literally the opposite of imposing rules, saying they are the same would be nonsensical. The absence of something can not be the same as the presence of that thing.
Saying that "morals are subjective" is an example of "self-defeating logic" is incorrect as it is one of the only two logical conclusions a person can reach in regards to morality. The source of morality is either subjective or it is objective, it can not be both. Either position is an absolute because of the fact that it must be one or the other, there is no other option.
The premise I'm starting off with is the preponderance of systems that say having fun is the goal.
@@StagRPG The goal of all games is obviously to have fun. That isn't what I am taking issue with though. All the examples you used of "self-defeating logic" are not examples of such. You also misrepresented those things.
@@mkklassicmk3895we fundamentally disagree. There are plenty of games people play with a mind for mastery. To say fun is obviously the reason to play means we're fundamentally out of alignment.
@@mkklassicmk3895 Plenty of people play football or soccer or whatever to have fun AND learn teamwork, leadership, discipline, and more. If someone said it's only for fun; they're missing out on a lot of opportunity to get more out of life. So the goal is not obviously to have fun.
@@StagRPG They want to master it because that is fun for them. If they didn't enjoy it then they would not do it. However, like I said, that isn't the part that I am taking issue with. The examples you used for self-defeating logic are not examples of such.
Some people just want to have a silly goose time and that's also okay. Find the group that likes what you like if you are really seeking this kind of deep role-play immersion. That's not always practical for some people. If your group is chill you should always be able to say "I want to run a game that goes really hard on role-play and interesting stories and sets a certain tone do you want to play that kind of game?
TTRPGs inherently have an extremely high bar to becoming something that could be considered art. For one thing it borrows so much from various fantasy worlds and existing fiction in order for session preparation to be manageable for the DM. And I think secondly it does not generate income - and therefore the time available to invest will always be limited and the priority secondary to other things.
I like that the game doesn't feel elitest, but it's also clear that having certain talents (improv etc.) massively improves your ability to play some facets of RP.
I guess I feel you are both right and wrong at the same time it really depends on your goals when playing the game. I don't think a lot of people are trying to quantify the quality of their performance when they play. They are just trying to have fun.
I'm not saying people who have fun are wrong. I'm saying the people who claim "it's just for fun" are wrong because they're ignoring a lot more that TTRPGs have to offer.
While you presented some good points, when you say there's an objectively best way, or optimal way to play, you're also making a quite bold statement, and I say I agree that that's a pretty good way to play, I also recon that it may not be for everyone. Some people may be deeply interested in the character building and optimization, tactical combat and so on. Other people may be interested in power and prestige in the game world, or riches, or anything else. While we may say there's an higher tier of play, the one of immersion, living in the fictional world by means of your character, for some people that could be a lesser goal, or even not fun at all, for some reason or another, and I find it difficult to argue against this.
For comparison, let's say someone likes walking, but then someone says martial arts are best, because you not only get better physically, but you also become more agile, flexible, and able to defend and attack yourself, but then the first person just want to walk, or ride a bike, or even play golf or some other not so complete exercise. Who are we to judge? How can we objectively tell the " right way" to play? We can only rank the ways to play if we first established a criteria, but then, each person could have it's own criteria to judge how games should be played, in order to have access to some kind of experience. I had a relative that loved to play a card game that was, to me, so boring and endless, and too much reliant on luck, other people love play bingo, and that to me is just a 100% luck thing with extra steps, but make people think this is a great way to spend an evening. So, I'd say there's no wrong way to play, but there's definitely best ways to play according to what you want from a game.
I would say optimal is getting the most value out of an interest. Fun is absolutely in there. Plus there's a whole lot more that 99% of people leave on the table. (Pun intended.)
If someone says "We're just here to have fun" then I'm out. We're here to have fun AND explore the power of perspective taking and experience the magic of imagination that comes from embodying a character. This video is my way of separating the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.
Awesome analysis. You validated feelings I've had but been unable to articulate.
I would love to see an expansion of point 5 and your thoughts on how that works. Being the character while having no real sensory input would really difficult if you couldn't ask the GM questions.
Might have to do a video about that; thanks for the suggestion!
I feel that many of the points in this video assume an inherit absolutism in the topics that it refutes. I do not think those points are commonly assumed to be contextualess holy mandate. In fact, I think most reasonable people understand that collaborative social activities are not meant to be so freeform that any expression whatsoever is equally valid. I have never seen anyone suggest that. Perhaps with the exception of children.
I know that may sound like an insult, but genuinely that is the one example I can think of where this would be applicable. Have I misunderstood the target audience for this video? If so, I apologize.
You have.
@StagRPG then my apologies.
Point 4 - The Keeney's of the world.
I'm unfamiliar with the reference; a google brought up plumbing equipment.
@@StagRPG Kenney is a guy who played at my table for about 4 years until circumstances forced me to move. I met up again with him a couple of years ago, but life is still getting in the way of having a regular session.
I use him to explain 'The Kenny's of the world." People who want to play; want to game; but struggle. Some struggle do to reading issues or comprehension issues, others struggle against the various stigmas often put on our hobby. They spent years being told it was 'weird or dumb or stupid'.
Some players are special needs; others are verging on special needs; you know? I watched Kenny reading the core books and it was painful, and yet, he kept reading and asking questions. How do I do this: How did you do that! But eventually, his confidence grew and so did his role playing.
It took time and patience and a willingness to be given the chance to play and to grow.
Thanks for the context, I appreciate it.
But there are people out there who 'wouldn't waste their time' on the Kenny's of the world. But then, maybe its just me and I'm wrong and they're right.
I don't believe that there is a 'right' or 'wrong' way to play, and yet, I am a stanch believer in 'the games have rules, structure, and purpose. Use them.'
What I often seem to fail expressing or getting across to 'some' people, is that while I embrace full immersion, I will never 'ban' or 'refuse' someone who wants to play; wants to learn; and is trying to do both, you know?
What makes many RPGs special as a game, is in the very fact that you can sit 10 Game Masters' down at a table and get 10 different views and implication of said rules. From strict to nearly non-existent, and if that table's occupants are having fun; are engaged in 'their play', then how is that wrong? And if you and I and Crispy and a couple of others played a deeply immersive game, had fun doing so and were engaged while at the table, then for our table, the system worked as we wanted it to do so.
Of course, this is all my opinion... such that it is.
@@yourseatatthetable Which I appreciate you sharing! 🙏
You may be angry now. Good
Based
BIG MAD
Great video!
Thanks @bigbadrpg!
It’s a game - just a game. Games have rules and structure. but there is nothing at stake at your game except the enjoyment of the players. We DM must find that sweet spot between guardrails, rules, structure and sanboxing.
I see it kind of like: "This big old gold nugget is a paperweight. Just a paperweight." Sure. You can treat it that way, but you might be missing a lot that it has to offer. Yeah, I'm not saying it's not a game; but there's a lot more to games than meet the eye.
@@StagRPG D&D is just a game and gold is just a rock.
“It’s just hours of your life”
Enjoyment is not the only the thing at stake. Access to higher states of consciousness are at stake.
Sorry I got to the party late; it's been a busy past few weeks for me. I suppose I have been pretty vocal about there being no "true way" to enjoy role-playing games. I don't really have much interest in convincing the die-hards that their way is just the way that is right for them. If strict character performance in real time is what's working for you, then great for you. However, to paraphrase Clifford Geertz, just because that approach is so enjoyable and rewarding to you that you have "clothed it in such an aura of factuality that it has come to seem uniquely realistic."
Personally, I am also in favor of playing from the perspective of a character that is autochthonous to the shared imagined setting, rather than a hodge-podge of fantasy tropes, and ones own worldview/mindset. I, too, prefer players to just run their characters without constant asides, although "real time" is certainly not the only time played out in RPGs. The use of "constant questions" has tended to be a sticking point between me and the 4D'ers.
From my perspective, that last part seems to stem from the 4D players not caring about the depth of the shared imagined space within which play will occur. As near as I can tell, whatever whim they have for their character can be played out as it arises; and, as long as it doesn't contradict the basic thematic framework, or any previously established details, then they just go with it and let the collaborative narrative work everything out in the end. For character performers, that's fine; it doesn't work for me as a motivation to play these games.
I need a world with established coherence, consistency, and continuity within which to enact these character decisions. I need a world that provides definite obstacles, and constraints upon character choice; moreover, I need those obstacles and constraints to have ontological priority, not just details made up in the moment, willy-nilly, because they happened to serve what a player wanted to have their character say or do. I do understand that all of us are using our experiences as inspiration to create these worlds; however, I cannot abide playing in a world that is cobbled together into an amalgamation of whatever fantasy tropes have been absorbed by the collaborating players.
In the grand scheme of playing RPGs, I do not care how immersed the other players are in their characters; as long as they're paying attention to the cues of the shared imagined space, and the other players, then they can be immersed or not to suit their own needs. I’m a social scientist, not an artist; I don’t need a lot kibbitzing or internal anguish to posit an individual comprised of acculturation, enculturation, and personality/temperament that is rooted in a fictional, but well-reasoned, shared imagined setting. At worst, I’m reductively applying an array of Durkheimian social facts as a proxy for an individuated being; but, I definitely do not need a sense of internal drama to make that being’s decisions comport with that postulated array of social facts.
I don't encourage people to ask a lot of "am I allowed to" questions; but, to the extent that it nearly impossible to share every sensible detail I, as the GM, know about a location, I do expect players to ask clarifying questions about that environment. I'm not opposed to players adding materials and/or concepts to the world; but, with the exception of fairly mundane, situation-appropriate items that have little potential to affect play, those things need to be decided between sessions, not during them.
I'll add my own analogy here. One of my other hobbies is mountain biking; I often ride in fairly to extremely difficult terrain. I have a friend who likes to ride; but, he only rides on the fairly maintained gravel trails of the larger local and state parks. They have lots of elevation changes, and are off-road in the sense that they’re not overly manicured, and aredefinitely not paved bike paths; but, they do not provide much in the way of technical challenges. Is my friend not a “real” mountain biker? Instead of enjoying the occasional leisurely ride in the company of a friend, should I take his bike from him, and tell them unless he’s willing to ride the more challenging courses, then he shouldn’t be allowed to have a mountain bike? I ride difficult mountain trails, where the only maintenance is provided by other hobbyists; but, I don’t participate in “trials” competitions, which all about difficult technical challenges. Should a competitive trials rider take my bike from me?
To quote Gary Gygax, from his 1989 book _Master of the Game: Principles and Techniques for Becoming and Expert Role-Playing Game Master,_ in a chapter entitled “The Philosophy of the Grand Master”:
_It is absolutely necessary to understand the only valid purpose for role-playing games. The games exist to provide entertainment. Entertainment is basically fun._
If two people want to play a Civil War game, by taking on the roles of Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee, based on nothing more than some Hollywood entertainment they’ve consumed, and they have fun doing it, then who are we to diminish or dismiss the qualitative reward that play had to those two players. Just because there’s no wrong way to enjoy playing tabletop RPGs, as long as you’re enjoying the experience, it does not mean that every style of play is right for you, or should be the way you play at your table.
Anyway, the bottom line is at the cash register. Regardless of how we feel about the ways other people are playing these games, or even promoting particular ways of playing these games, as long as they keep funding the TTRPG industry, there will still be new games, and new players of those games, coming into the hobby. If people want to spend their free time trying to “gatekeep” how the hobby is practiced, then bless their hearts; I just see it as another form of role-playing game. In the end, those new players are just going to gravitate toward the ways of playing that appeal most to them; and, those players already using those approaches, will be there to provide them with tips and tricks they have developed over the years. Regards!
Yours is the only multi-paragraph response I've enjoyed. 🙏 I appreciate you weighing in, and I'm on board with a vast majority of it.
@@StagRPG I really do enjoy the discussion. I know a lot of the 4D folks just give me a "thumbs down," and move on; that's always seemed a shame to me, because there ultimately is a lot of overlap between our expectations of what play should look/feel like when the time for discussion is set aside for actually playing at the table with others. Best!
@@Archaeo_Matt Yeah, I think my main point is that the folks who are "fun is the point" die-hards are missing a lot that roleplaying has to offer. Social skills, creativity, imagination development, etc. There are lots beyond the 'fun' box that most folks decide to stick to. So I wanted to make a video that challenged that head-on.
Another angle is if you aren't interested in roleplaying; call it something different. Storytelling game, wargaming, adventure gaming; whatever. But dang do a lot of people who call it a roleplaying game refuse to roleplay even a little bit. Beyond weird to me.
@@StagRPG I get that. My workaround has been to challenge definitions of fun that just speak to personal enjoyment, whereas fun derives more from joint hedonic satisfaction, and is more other-referential than personal pleasure. I did a video on the broader nature of fun, but it's not been very popular with RUclips.
In terms of naming...I probably would prefer to go with "adventure gaming," with no intent to cut role-playing out of the list of expectations. Much like why I use TTRPG, it sort of boils down to using the nomenclature that most of the potential audience recognizes. One of the shortcomings of using "role-playing" is that computer RPGs have muddied that water. I don't think either of us would use terms like: healer, tank, DPS'er, or jack-of-all-trades; but, those are now firmly, and legitimately (at least in CRPG terms), part of the zeitgeist as "roles" to be performed within a role-playing game.
I think the way forward has to be a focus how to get people to want to play characters that are something other than just an extension of the self projected into a fictionalized setting. I mainly respond to always being able to find more of not just the lore, but the imagined physical presence of the world and its contents, as dig beyond the surface descriptions. On the other hand, I also think the majority of players don't care that much about the authenticity of the world, just that it doesn't do anything to break their immersion in the more immediate action of the decisions to be made during the game session.
EDIT: I thought I was subscribed to you already, but just notice I wasn't. I think I've mostly just seen your Posts on home page up till now. So, I'll be a new subscriber to make up for one of the lost ones....
@@Archaeo_Matt I really appreciate that you went out of your way to acknowledge that fun isn't intrinsic to mere game mechanics, THAT is what I've been missing in so many of these replies!
Cheers, one of those 4D guys lol.
I always thought, that 'play however you want' or 'there is no better or worse way of playing' is not a 'rule', but just a statement, that gets rid of people saying I should be doing it their way, cause their way of playing RPG is "the correct one". I don't think there is "a correct one", because not everyone is able to play on the same level of commitment(?). Also - the 'no rules' approach is ok in some cases. For example as a short experiment, to check what will happen, what will change and what will be discovered, that otherwise would stay hidden. As for the 'play for fun' approach - I think that in free time everyone should do whatever they want. There is no need to constantly improve yourself (said that - I love improving myself constantly in my free time, but I don't think this is for everybody).
The 'do whatever you want' however, ruins the experience. If you play with specific character, you should feel it and try to act like one. If you want 'play however you want' with it, just make the character you want to play, and act accordingly! And when you want to change the way you behave, talk to your GM and ask for character change! Otherwise it is just stupid and insulting to the GM and to the rest of the group.
A ruleset, a discipline - that are 'fun makers'. RPG is fun when it's challenging. It is fun because of the rules you should obey. It is fun, because you can evolve and master the craft, and every time you do it, you reach the next level of fun.
So - play as you like, but I will play my way. The way I consider the correct way (and I think writing that I agree with what you say). The 'every way is good' is a very good statement, because some people that don't want to share deeper experience and don't want to make effort will leave you alone and won't argue anymore ;)
I appreciate that you see the value in having fun AND getting more out of what's on offer. 🙏
Perma-DM here (have been DMing for the past 6-ish years by this point, across 3 campaigns) (I am specifically going to be referring to D&D 5e here, and I am not too well versed in other systems, and lack the ethos)
Kind of an L take here in this video. I'll address your points one by one
Self Defeating Logic: This argument tends to be pedantic, it is like the paradox of tolerance where "a truly tolerant society cannot, itself, tolerate intolerance". Such linguistic paradoxes don't exactly have any substance behind them.
The False Promise: Roleplaying, like other forms of art, have value that is always relative to the artist, and to the observer. Much like how a 6 year old's hand-turkey might be seen as more valuable by that kid's mother than a painting by a 3rd year art student, even if the average observer might have a different evaluation, and may critically analyze the latter as "better". But in D&D, the observers of the roleplaying are the DM and the other players, not a wider audience (unless it is something like a Critical Role situation). This begs the question. Even if the roleplaying is subpar (based on either arbitrary or relative standards), why should the player *need* to improve? While I do think that the game is generally more fun when the roleplaying is good, it entirely depends on the play group. Some players don't want to put in the work to improve, and that is okay so long as they aren't trying to join some game with an emphasis on immersive roleplaying. Some players just want to show up on a Saturday afternoon and play some D&D and hang out with friends for a few hours while cracking jokes and talking about their week. This is fine. It doesn't make the D&D any less "valid".
Perspective Taking: Method actors are PAID to do act. D&D players aren't PAID to play (again, not really counting Critical Role). Actors have a market pressure to improve their craft. I am experienced in this style of roleplaying (to the point where I once was able to have a heated debate in-character, defending an idea with cohesive arguments that I myself disagreed with irl). But while every DM has the right to choose who sits at their table, but I wouldn't want to ever put that kind of pressure on one of my players (for a similar result to the analogy, you would need to have a player's spot at the table be contingent on their skill in immersive roleplaying). I kick players only rarely, and only for real problems, not because they aren't as engaged as some of the other players or myself.
The Intelligence Gate: I don't see your point. Sure, not everyone can be an amazing roleplayer, and as you said, that is fine. But how does that prevent people from improving if they want to?? I actually find that the opposite effect happens. The Mercer Effect (Last time bringing up Critical Role, I promise). So many new D&D players that saw Mercer DMing during the pandemic, expect most D&D games to be like that, not realizing that they have professional writers, and voice actors there that are PAID to act.
The Way Forward: I don't see the issue with the players staying at that kid level. Like you said, they are running around "having fun" (which is the primary goal for D&D. If the game is not fun, it fails to be a game). I do acknowledge that some approaches are better than others, but there is not a one-size fits all. Every game should be tailored to its players, to maximize the fun for them. For example, one could have a D&D game that is all about combat, with basically no roleplaying with progressively harder and harder bosses that take high level strategy and coordination to defeat, while another campaign might have very little combat, focusing more on roleplaying and character-driven narratives. Some will have a focus on exploration of a world, some will have a combination of the 3. Notably, not every player should be at every table. But there should be a table for every player (so long as someone is willing to run that table)
In conclusion, I defend "Play how you want" because it IS true (so long as everyone is having fun at a table appropriate for the game they want to play). The opposite of fun is boredom. Boredom arises when the game becomes a chore. If a player wants to improve their roleplaying, it should be a pursuit they take on their own volition, not because of a social pressure, as that can make it a chore. If you say that better roleplaying makes the game "better", I will ask you: "Better for whom, specifically? The player that improved? Perhaps, if they were capable of such levels of roleplaying and are able to do so without it becoming a chore. Better for the DM? Maybe, but the DM's fun ALWAYS comes secondary to the players' fun.
Feel free to reply. I am definitely willing to have a civil discussion.
Thanks for the reply.
Saying there is no wrong way to play is semantically identical to saying there is no way to play. If a game is anything at all, then a game is nothing but the sum of its rules.
🤝
@@LLMTest1024 I'm not reading all that but I know what it says after the first sentence. It just goes to show both the general illiteracy of gamers and also how many other so-called game designers don't actually know what a game is.
As to story. There is no story. A story is something that is told from a particular point of view to describe a series of events. What happens at the table is events based on player and NPC actions. The game has no story. Stories are told by players after the fact. No two are the same.
@@LLMTest1024 The experience is the point. The story is what they tell after the experience. The story is not the focus.
@@StagRPG So you agree with me now? Great.
There is no experience without following a rule. It's experiencing the outcome of a process. Anything else is just making things up. And just making things up is not an experience and not a game.
I think so? The comment management for RUclips is atrocious, but I'm not immediately saying you're wrong? Does that count? X^D
As an art form? You may take it too seriously.
Method actors in dnd tend to be a problem.
It's a game. try your best. try to get better, sure.
If you are not having fun. dont play.
I'm not advocating for no fun. I'm saying fun as the sole focus is missing the point.
@@StagRPG Random Chaos is no good but I must admit the fantasy milieu has lead us into more light hearted adventures than grim dark, though I like both.
@@biffstrong1079 And I'm not saying the tone can't be enjoyable or lighthearted. It's simply that roleplaying has merit beyond fun. Fun as the focus misses the point.
You are living breathing embodiment of Dunning Kruger effect ;)
This is my favorite comment so far. Thank you old and sad.
Bad grammar while insulting your intelligence. I love it.
Probly w 50 yrs of experience. Lets not talk about stockholm syndrome xD
Might as well as be quoting Rush with their line "If you chose not to decide you still have made a choice".
And which I say "DUH!" Everyone knows that. You aren't giving new insight into the world. No one is sitting there like "OMG You can't call the rule that you can play the way you want a rule, how dare you!"
"You aren't giving new insight into the world." Physician, heal thyself.
I don't defend "play as you want", but you make a flawed assumption that TTRPGs should be about "real role playing"
The term "role playing game" was controversial when it first became popular. D&D and other games didn't originally use that term, and when it became popular, many complained that "I'm not 'role playing' when I do this. I'm playing a strategy game, I'm playing an open ended adventure game, but I'm not 'role playing" my character beyond deciding their actions"
It's not an assumption. It's an argument.
@@StagRPG
No, it is an assumption. Every argument in the video is based on the assumption that this underlying premise true, yet at no point is an argument made to defend this assumption.
In TTRPGs you take on a "role", and from that perspective you are always "role-playing", but for the the majority gaming systems it has never been about full out "real role-playing" like you describe.
To suggest that your style is factually "better" is rediculous, and if you want to go down that path, then you would need to create a video that explains WHY and HOW your style is better than other options.
@@aliquida7132 I appreciate your input.
@@StagRPG I love when you give your stance and then they tell you that that actually isnt your stance.
"So you're saying. . . ." CathyNewman.jpg
So i 100% disagree with this but i think its because you are thinking of a specific person/people/situation that i dont know about. Currently, it kinda sounds like your saying a lot of things that are true to "prove" what your trying to say but without proper context it just sounds like
"The way i play is the correct way and you are wrong for doing anything different".... In a creative space...
I look forward to watching your video response.
@StagRPG so there is no reason for this video? You just saw this be said, came up with an interpretation, didn't talk to anyone about it, then made a video against it? If there is more context I would like to know, otherwise the only proof I need is the fact that I and my friends are having fun.
I appreciate you taking the time to comment.
Ignore this man.
I would watch a video response explaining why folks should ignore me.
@@StagRPG Dont mind him. He just isnt sure how to challenge his own stance.
What a bunch of nonsense, the rejection of a realism stance does not automatically lead to the proclamation of a relativism stance. If you want to get philosophical, then better do next time proper homework and account for a moral anti-realism stance too. The second point is a strawman, since nobody says just because there multiple ways to have fun that all ways are equally good for everybody. You even bring the example of an art exhibit, and were also nobody hangs a childs work next to a classical master of the arts, but you know very well that there are many different styles that all can be art and not just one. Point #3 is really funny, since you fail to understand the perspective of people you are arguing against, which is why you rely on fallacies, like the false dichotomy on the first point ad the strawman on the second. I don't understand your fourth point. Is that an attempt to look smart? If so, then you have already proven with first three points that this is not the case since you fail your own standard with regarding the third point. Regarding your fifth point, well, that is just, like, your opinion, man. Just like the martial arts you mention, there are more than one style and so no single true way to do martial arts.
And no, I am not angry, I have seen this arrogant nonsense so often that it only saddens me. I mean sure, if you want a highly tactical game to feel smart, then sure there is a best way to achieve that, or if you want in character immersion then there are techniques that make that easier to achieve, but some people want a narrative experience and not a tactical, and others want to get immersed in the narrative as a whole and not just in their character, and those are not lesser forms of roleplay or even not true roleplay. So, get down from your high horse, and maybe learn about other styles, so that you can actually define your own personal style and understand that it is just a preference you hold and not some cosmic truth how to engage with the hobby.
Thanks for the comment.
quite frankly, i think the rise in popularity thanks to Stranger Things and a certain youtube show has been a massive negative for the TTRPG community. the popularity has lead to people who don't actually care about TTRPGs to get deeply involved because its popular and they are worse than the grognards of old (and i say that as someone who prefers roleplaying every single time).
Isn't it weird how rare roleplaying is in this roleplaying world?!