Completely agree. Roleplay is the element I want to maximize in my games. So much so, that I want it to be present in all events that transpire during the game session. I don't like to pause roleplay to enter into a tactical mini wargame. Your description and examples of the idealized use of a form is excellent.
So... maybe play a different game? You know, you can for example check Fiasco or other similiar freeforms, where you will be mainly "roleplaying" or you can play more a "storyplaying game" with a lot of "roleplaying" and zero tactical combat like for example The Between or Brindlewood Bay? Or maybe you want to only roleplay and play the world so you can try a modern FKR style game? If you don't like to pause a roleplay to enter into tactical combat boardgame then instead of post-trad/post-classic rpg hybrids you can play almost anything else it's out there...
I remember the time (30 years ago...) when I GMed for my friend in the school-yard between classes. No dice, just us. A very strong and vivid memory of what freedom of imagination can do to enrich the human experience.
This is why I like White Wolf games. I know, “Vampire”, “Werewolf” and “Mage” are stereotypically LARP-y games with a reputation for attracting the uber nerdy, but I actually like some of the less well-known titles like “Changeling” and “Promethean”. I was once in a “Changeling: The Lost” game where all the players were professional actors (nobody famous, but all members of SAG) and the GM was a film director, and it was the best game I ever played in. I myself am not much of an actor (high school plays and musicals), but they brought the best out of me. A total blast and I so wish I could get into another game like that. There were sessions when we hardly rolled any dice at all - and when we did, the GM gave huge bonuses based on roleplaying quality; meaning that the better character actors never failed…. Good times.
It is unfortunate that when one tells another that they like something over something else, some can't accept it and may try to convert, ridicule, or just dismiss it. Roleplay has been fractured into "styles" now. On a low end...you stand up and in a voice you tell the troops to charge. "Roleplay...?" On a high end...you stay in character as much as possible. All actions are not what "you" would do but what the "character" would do. All actions presented in first person help submerge all at the table in what we are creating. "I" grab for her wrist trying to control the knife. Instead of the seperating "my character grabs..." I've had really cool experiences that are now desirable when emphasizing roleplay. How to sprinkle in the mechanics even through roleplay is now a thing too. "You take 27 points of damage." or... "The blade slides across your back. It cut deep." Hopefully you can trust your player to define the information with the description given. How deep down the rabbit hole will you go? Just thoughts
This is a completely spurious argument. Definitions, and most things in general in fact, are historically constituted amalgams, not "essences" which can be distilled into some pure ideal object. RPGs as a thing emerge from wargames as the marriage between statistics driven game play mechanics with character focused storytelling. This neatly describes both D&D itself and the design lineage it spawned (other TTRPGS, CRPGs, JPRGs, MMORPGs, etc) in a clean and sensible manner that has been used consistently in that way by most people for over half a century now. The statistics driven mechanics have typically focused on combat due to their origins in wargames, the ease of modelling, etc, but can be about any quantifiable thing. Even FitD games, which heavily de-emphasize both combat and GM authority, are fundamentally RPGs because they are character centered and statistically driven. One can have many fair and valid complaints about how D&D and its kin center combat, or how exactly combat is implemented in this or that edition, but to claim it's not an RPG but a "Hybrid" is ridiculous. You do not get a more "pure" RPG by lopping off the statistical mechanics no more than you get a more "pure" car by disconnecting the parts from the engine block. Most RPGs are "Hybrids" because what you describe as a "Hybrid" is in fact just what an RPG is in the first place. You may as well try to argue that the album Ambient 1 isn't ambient music, or that Doom isn't an FPS. Also, yes, I have seen your subsequent videos on this topic, and I think your attempt to provide clarity to the discussion in fact just muddies the waters because you're trying to impose an ahistorical essentialist framework onto something which is a historically constituted amalgam.
I agree, more-or-less. Plato's Forms fail to account for the anthropocentric way we view reality, carving it up and making connections between things based on their importance _to us._ This is no different. It's still important though, to look at what makes an RPG unique and different from things like war-games, and I believe there is a fundamental difference in their goal/telos regardless of mechanics or lineage. You're not the first person to assume that if I want to play a game without the telos of a war-game that I must want to remove statistical mechanics (as if statistical mechanics are exclusive to war-gaming and cannot be used to role-play), but I don't think that at all! I just don't need mechanics that mediate GM-player conflict (as opposed to PC-NPC conflict), and am seeking to create a space (and the terms to go with it) that allow us to speak about this kind of game. I'd be happy to use whatever terms are accepted, but I'd struggle to agree with the idea that RPGs must have the telos of war-games, and if some RPGs do and some RPGs don't, then we've got two useful categories (as I prefer to play the latter and avoid the former) and would appreciate a way to refer and distinguish them. As an aside, I wouldn't argue that _Doom_ wasn't an FPS - you spend the majority of the game in first person! But 1998's _Battlezone?_ It's FPS and RTS... maybe that one we'd call a hybrid.
I learned about Tales of the Loop through this video and my friends and I just had our session zero and wow! Even that was more fun than any of the D&D I've played in the last 3 years. Thank you so very much for your thoughts, they're entertaining and insightful
Great vlog! :) And as usual, a few I hope constructive comments: 1. Are you talking about “roleplaying” or “roleplaying GAMES”? It does sound a bit like you want to remove the “GAME” element from “rpg” :) 2. There are play cultures that will be much closer to this “essence” than the post-trad/post-classic rpgs you’re talking about, e.g., various kinds of freeforms, larps, and narrative improv. 3. If this set up of the play consolete is most important to you, then why not always play games like Fiasco, where you have quick character + relationship + situation creation followed by 2 scenes per character, some dramatic tilt, another 2 scenes per character, and a dramatic epilogue? You then have almost only "roleplaying" there. 4. If we adopt your definition of “roleplaying games” it excludes many “storyplaying / storytelling / story games” - fair enough. In this case, “roleplaying games” are a subset of “storyplaying games” but at the same time a subset of “dramatic improv performances”. 5. When talking about hybrids, you only refer to wargames, in which indeed two different modes of play (tactical combat + roleplaying) are very different modes of play. But what about games that combine “emulating genre & storytelling with roleplaying” [Swords without Master] or “world-building with roleplaying” [Microscope]? Would you still say that “roleplaying” is the essence in them? 6. Ofcourse there is no objective truth written in a holy book of all knowledge when it comes to this topic, but even if we assume that “roleplaying” is the essence of “roleplaying games”, from my subjective perspective, “roleplaying” doesn’t mean “play acting” like in theater, larp, or improv but making decisions as a character, considering their motivations, instincts, reactions, and beliefs in a simulated fictional world. So it can be entirely done descriptively in the third person, without the need to act as the character ("my character tells the policeman a funny story, trying to build rapport with him, you know, maybe something about current problems with traffic in our city"). 7. It’s interesting how much this hinges on language. In English, we have the term “roleplaying games” (hence the whole fight over nomenclature and the creation of the term “story games”) but in Polish, we have a term that can be translated to “fiction games” or “fiction playing games”, which automatically covers a much broader range of games. 8. There’s also no definition of “roleplaying games” that everyone agrees on, it’s more of a broad amalgam of various elements constituting “rpg”, since exceptions can be found for each element. You know… “rpgs are analog games that” - ANALOG? what about Alice is Missing?!… “they are social games that” - SOCIAL? what about solo rpgs?? etc. 9. I like Baker’s definition that rpgs are games where everyone at the table must agree on what’s happening in the fiction. And that this distinguishes them from board games :) But again, there’s no emphasis on “roleplaying” here, but on “fiction playing”.
Ive been experimenting with absract maps in my campaign for pathfinder, the party seems to enjoy the tactics having a representation thats that tangible, but as the gm i do struggle with its influence on roleplay. I try my best to have something in world be mentioned at every turn, to dapple it in around the raw mechanics. Im on the fence on how to proceed but i do think ive decided against having miniatures and maps that are substituting imagination. Relying on small stones and such seems to satisfy this for me at the moment Edit: two sessions ago was 80% combat in such a manner, last session was 95% mapless exploration and rp. Each session was apparently the best yet
there are too few REALLY interesting abilities in modern ttrpgs. abilities that are thematically rich and NOT combat-centric. i am STARVING for those, and i have not seen them yet... almost. there are some good examples in Heart: City Beneath. one that i remember very well is the ability to dig through any kind of soil with your bare hands. i fell in love with this one at first glance... but didn't take it in my game because GM made it combat-centric. well, not entirely, but i was still afraid of being inefficient. and this fear is the SCOURGE of ttrp gaming. this ability, although not fit for every occasion like a fireball, sets my imagination on fire with what i COULD do with it (even if i end up ditching the idea, pun intented). There are other examples like adhesive spit, ability to stomach any matter, gaze that can kill etc. Another ttrpg that kind of does the same thing is Wildsea. this last one has a good balance between exploration, combat and social interactions (exploration being the leading one). maybe it's the charm of novelty, but just a few sessions in these games made me love them, while dnd never could. and i don't actually think it's the charm of novelty as other enthusiasts that i have argued with repeatedly in thematic chats could only love dnd and other combat centric ttrpgs. and yes, one can do a roleplay heavy game in dnd, no doubts about that. but why then make (like you said) 90% of rules and abilities about combat? there should have been the "dnd combat book", an independent supplement for those who want their game to be a wargame)
Food analogy. The platonic form of food doesn't need a plate drinks, ambience or company, but the way to enhance the food itself is to add all these things that aren't food. When I roleplay I also want things that aren't roleplay to make the roleplay better. For me, the purest roleplay would also be the least enjoyable since it lacks all the auxiliary elements (dice, drinks, mechanics, strategy, music, etc.)
It’s a fine analogy, and I agree. The project here is not to reduce role-play to a single element just to leave it that way, but rather to identify what’s necessary and sufficient for role-play and make sure we give it the attention it deserves. You can have the finest cutlery ever made, but if your food is trash, your meal will be too. We also want to make sure we’re picking the right auxiliary elements, ones that facilitate role-play, not preclude or hinder it. Role-playing with mechanics that facilitate role-play is like eating soup from a bowl with a soup spoon. Trying to role-play with mechanics that facilitate war-gaming is like eating soup from a colander with a steak knife.
@@TheTombofLimeGaming Well said. I enjoyed pure strategy, and I enjoy pure roleplay, but I have the most fun with them together. For me, it is as if roleplay is the soup, but strategy is the bowl. (This applies especially when roleplaying dramatically involves knowingly making sub-optimally decisions. I personally enjoy the tension between winning the war and winning the other players' hearts.) My experience is that battle tactics and roleplay each make the other better.
I never noticed it before, but the 2001 novel contradicts the spinning station from the movie: in the text you showed, the center specifically spins in a way that to the outside viewer, is static (so a craft can just fly straight into it), yet the movie shows the entire station rotating, and the ship has to match the rotation of the station to be able to get in (because it looks cooler?). Normally I wouldn't notice such a tiny detail but I have been playing Elite since the 80s and this was a big part of docking into stations (they even used the same music as Kubrick)
Yes, of course it’s worth pursuing a form where roleplaying is maximized. Part of the key to that process would be to try and tease out the things that make the current forms of the genre comforting and try and find ways to incorporate them in the new form. For example - character progression, or tactical combat. These are deeply ingrained in D&D, so understanding 1) why and 2) how do you replace them in a way that is still satisfying would be key to making the new form as successful as possible.
I think City of Mist is the most roleplay heavy game I've experienced. It has no mechanics for NPC or initiative, it's entirely based on the player character themes. They literally call the character sheets theme cards and you get multiple to pick aspects your character finds more important than others as bonuses to the rolls, the rolls being for anything you can imagine. The system it self is mystery solving in a noir setting with the supernatural hiding in the mist that normal people can't imagine.
I had typed up a huge response to this only to realize "I should just make a video response" haha. But basically, exactly on the money. On a totally different hobby that I have, James Hoffmann recently made a video on the difference between a coffee that you personally like and one that's objectively good. An orange tastes like an orange, even if taste is subjective. That's difficult for people to grasp with hobbies in many cases. Awesome vids man, keep up the good work.
@@TheTombofLimeGaming It is done, and ended up being much longer winded than intended haha. Hopefully somewhat enjoyable though if you have time to watch it or parts of it.
Dear Matt I agree with you. I think the closest I have come to, what I think you are describing, is a game called Orbital. I liked it a lot. No GM and no dice. Also Microscope was wonderful. Thank you very much! Sincerely, Alicia from Sweden.
Solid, nuanced take. I appreciated it because I enjoy both RP focused games and hybrids where it’s part war game. I find the use of miniatures at the heart of this topic. When I use miniatures, violent conflict is the primary problem solving method and the tactics of battle often are the focus. The grid and minis reinforce that - whether consciously in D&D or unconsciously in a game like Call of Cthulhu where combat is a last resort. When I play theater of the mind, the conflict tends to be less tactical and more vivid - supporting the story. I like most of the games in the horror genre, so I prefer theater of the mind which focuses on role playing or storytelling over tactical battles and resource management. I do find it interesting how metacurrencies, as found in Modiphius’ 2d20 games or Eden’s Cinematic Unisystem, have an interesting way of having a board game like effect on otherwise story focused games though.
What I'm attempting to address with other RPG Gamers is... are you ok that the GM roleplays your character for you? Are you ok that the GM moves you on your behalf? Are you ok that the GM says what your character says in the game? If not, we have a solution.
Yep. How am I supposed to role-play if the GM keeps taking my character off of me? Are my actions merely suggestions to the master storyteller, or am I actually a character in a living world?
@@TheTombofLimeGaming it take a GM a lot of guts to admit to being a hog for all those years. But its hard to get them to realize it in the first place.
My Issue with this take is that the platonic ideal of a role playing game is not the same thing as the platonic ideal of role playing. While it is true that a role-play heavy session is closer to the ideal of role playing than of a game (and the same is true in reverse) it is a role-playing game so it should be measured from the ideal of a role playing game. It makes no sense to measure the distance from the ideal chair to a car, they are separate things. they are only related because the platonic ideal of a car (most likely) contains a chair. So the platonic ideal role-playing game would contain the ideal of role-playing and the ideal of games. but we wouldn't measure the ideal role-playing game form the ideal of role-playing, just as we don't measure a car based on how chair-ie it is. So while there isn't a right way to role-play, and I do agree that some role-playing games lean one way or the other, it is still a role-playing game, in the same way that the Transformer Movies are Films and so is 2001, they are just different distances from the platonic ideal.
Yes, a car is not a chair, despite having chairs in it, I’m on board with that. However! If you were to describe your car as a _Chair Car_ to distinguish it from other cars, you would hope that there was some significant, salient feature of the car that made it different from other cars _that had something to do with chairs!_ If I took the shell of something that everyone agreed was a car and installed one chair, but also replaced the engine with four sets of pedals for the driver and passengers to affect locomotion, and presented it to a friend saying ‘Behold, a _Chair Car,’_ I think my friend would be well within his rights to pull me aside and say ‘that’s great, but dude, _that is clearly a Pedal Car.’_ Games that are predominantly war-games, but bill themselves as Role-Playing Games just because they have some amount of role-playing in them are _Pedal Cars_ parading as _Chair Cars_ just because they have a chair in them. I’ve got to say, I never thought I’d ever have to construct that particular sentence, so thanks! This was fun to think about. Now that I think about it, your movie analogy would have been much more sensible! Consider the movie _Drive_ (2011) which was marketed as an action film à la _The Fast and the Furious_ but movie goers were disappointed to discover that it was more of a dramatic film with far fewer car chases than anticipated. Despite containing some _action,_ _Drive_ is not an _action film_ and people were quite mad about its ‘deceptive’ marketing. So again, we come to this: games that are predominantly war-games, but bill themselves as Role-Playing Games just because they have some amount of role-playing in them are like dramas parading as action films just because they have some action in them. Or something like that.
@TheTombofLimeGaming I must say, that was a well laid out retort. However, I would say that it's important to remember that deciding what isn't in a game is as much a part of the design as what is. It is true to say that dnd 5e has tons of rules for war-gaming and almost nothing for role-playing. While this does mean less of the system is about role-playing, it ironically leaves more room to do so. I don't have the exact quote, but when he was asked why he doesn't use a role-play heavy system brennan lee mulligan said (something to the effect) that he knows how he wants to run RP, he doesn't need it to be a system, but he wants a combat heavy system because he doesn't want to have to run it from scratch. And I think that's why calling it misleading is inaccurate. It brings your own role-play, instead of a role-play buffet like some games. And neither way is a negative they are just different.
That was a strong argument, but if true, is devastating to, at least Dungeons and Dragons as I have participated in, I'd say since the mid-90s and especially since, I'd say 2019. With the exception of an ancient (35+ years) ongoing Greyhawk campaign I was in, in my experience today, players no longer role-play at all and are hostile to me when I role-play. They are 100% tactical and have no use for a character apart from tactical strength. If pressed, they resort to the most tired stereotypes, and derisive of odd choices like druid. Druids are arguable one of the most tactically strong of classes, but they are just too odd and too suspect of some quality-which now I suspect is that they possess an innate motivation, lol... nature-love. As I say, this is still very alien to me, coming out of the D&D of 1980. Character quirks were assumed part of the play. I don't dismiss the allure of powerful combat buffs then, but the thing was, those didn't exist to the extent they have since 4e. One gained power by playing a very long time and obtaining magic items and spells, a substantial investment of time.
Well I completely get the argument. I will say the one thing that role-play games must have to be that is roles. So even the way your character acts in combat is defined by the rule. So I don't believe that talking as your character is the only way to play a role.
No, I agree with you! Not necessarily just 'talking as your character,' but rather _acting in character_ (of which talking is one kind of action you can take, but, as you say, combat is another). There are ways of doing combat (for example) acting in character and ways of acting out-of-character (what I'd call _metagaming)_ though, and I think the _in character_ actions are what we should prioritise in role-playing games because they're the thing that role-playing games cannot do without without fundamentally being some other kind of game.
Well, Villneuve might actually be in the minority on his statement. Lots of movies are remembered precisely because of dialogue because dialogue's physical manifestation can be just so perfectly shown using film. Voice timbre, cracking, loudness. Facial expression delivering the line. They cannot be reproduced neither in books, nor in radio. Saying that dialogue script is non-native to cinema is correct, saying that dialogue as a whole does not belong to the ideal of cinema... That's just wrong. Just a sidenote.
Wouldn't a pure "Theater of the mind" game of D&D be considered actual role-play? Without miniatures and battle mats? I know old-school D&D was all about pencil, paper, and dice. The tactical combat side was just optional.
For sure. We pick on D&D a bit, but I imagine you could use any system you wanted to role-play with, it's just that some systems probably lend themselves to role-play better than others.
In my opinion it is gambling for the fate of the imaginary self. It certainly isn't acting, nor telling stories per se. Story is the result of roleplaying.
Very cool and impressive series of videos. Hands down what is your academic background? 🤔I am a psychologist and studied philosophy and literature too.🤓 I smell a lot of those ideas in your videos. 😎
The platonic ideal or primal essence of RPGs is immersion, which we acquire through the act of roleplaying. But we also roleplay during combat, and immersing ourselves in the imaginary battles taking place in the game is another example of roleplaying.
I wonder what your take is on Charisma and other social mechanics... do they assist in role-play or turn those chances we have to actually inhabit our characters into "roll-play"?
I think that social mechanics can be done right, but for the most part designers don't make their utility specific enough and players end up using them _instead_ of role-playing rather than to _inform_ their role-playing. I am on a quest to find the system that does this best, I'll take any recommendations!
"tactical combat isnt roleplay" i know what you mean, but i have to disagree. when i am in combat in a tactical rpg, i am making combat decisions *as my character would*, with my character's wellbeing and strategic goals in mind. of course the medium it is more abstract than the medium of conversation, but it is still playing the role of a character, and in its own way immerses you in that *role*. i would rather talk of a distinction between social roleplay and tactical roleplay, if we are going this route.
Well, "pretend" would be pure role-play but not much of a game. And a roleplaying game it is. So by definition every roleplaying game is an hybrid of sorts, with varying degrees of roleplay and rules.
I really hate Plato's idealism, since the idea of the essence of the forms could exist beyond the material world is just silly nonsense to me. If I take that back to the the film and book that had Kubrick and Clarke indeed often very different views on, but then someone would say that only the intention or the director or the author counts and the other can be dismissed as not being the true form. But of course I enjoy the death of the author approach to media criticism and thus feel not forced to take either as gospel but any interpretation that can result is valid. In character? I mean even if I have a game that really focuses on roleplay, that still does not mean the players have to be in character as character, maybe only talking in first person. There are so many layers to this, that if you want to tell me that roleplay has only to be that narrow definition of yours, then I I would tell you that I have probably never roleplayed. Since, well, I usually look at my characters as dolls I play with, I talk about their actions in third person. Sure, I am very invested in them, and emotionally quite close to them, but I am not my characters nor are my character in any way, shape, or form me. And yet players that lean into character play, immersive experiences in the hobby, quite often tell me how much they enjoy my roleplay. Hell, I would even agree with you that the tactical gaming that is so prevalent in the hobby can detract from character expressions or an immersive experience in the fiction as fiction. But for me all the ability rolls are just also that, that characters are too often just meeples in an imaginary board game and with all the focus on the character capabilities the game commonly is no better then as any tactical game, since neither is exploring the human condition or providing the characters with any kind of narrative arc. Following that thought barely any system would actually qualify as roleplaying games, one of the few would be Fiasco, and funnily enough that is something plenty of people would not even call a roleplaying game but use other terms like storygame for it. And I ay that as someone who works on her own system, and that could not be any less a hybrid, since like I mentioned even all a capability porn that most games indulge is for me too gamey and not enough about the expression of characters. Basically I want to know who the characters are and how they change and not just what they are capable of doing, we are human beings and not human doings after all!
I think even Plato had issues with his own metaphysics by the end (see Parmenides, but not really, it’s very annoying). From your description, yes, maybe under this definition you haven’t played the role of a character, but just played ‘with’ a character instead. I’m not surprised it helped other players get immersed though, most GMs speak in third person about their NPCs! ‘…characters are too often just meeples in an imaginary board game and with all the focus on the character capabilities the game commonly is no better then as any tactical game…’ Totally agree. Despite this though, no matter what your game system focusses on, it’s still up to the players how they play it. By setting the standard of in character role-play the way that we have, players will never mention their abilities, stats, or mechanics, and it makes it much easier to focus on who the characters are. Any system might be able to be used to role-play (some make it harder than others), but you still need players that are on board with what you’re trying to do - you need players who want to be in character, who are committed to being in character, who put role-play as their superordinate goal. Perhaps you need a good social contract.
Hi Nicolas! I have some dot points on the stuff I want to talk about with the major things I want to address, then I just start talking. I take a break every now and then to sip some tea, check my dot points, then go again and cut it all together at the end. Well... I had those quotes written down verbatim.
I'm flabbergasted that you would have the audacity to even suggest that DND, the undisputed king of ttrpg's, isn't actually a roleplaying game! You're right of course. However, choosing to come out and say it on the Internet makes either very brave or very dumb, and since you were clever enough to figure it out in the first place, I'm going to guess it's the former. Either way, you walk a dangerous road my friend, and I wish you the best of luck. You're going to need it.
Brave and dumb aren't mutually exclusive 😄 but hey, I ran D&D4e (the most board-game-y version they've made) for a long time. I've done my time in the trenches.
😮 indeed! Well, let's see if I can reconcile them. Here, try one of these: a) there is more than one way to role-play, but there are not infinite ways, or; b) there is more than one way to role-play, but you're allowed to have opinions on which ways you think are better and express justifications for those reasons. Hopefully one of these gets me out of being a hypocrite!
This is a big issue in the wod fanbase with differing thamatic approaches to the settinh. the fandom has rotted due to the obssesion that playing certain types of play are wrong and its been going on with decades.
I'm not sure why you exclude role play from tactical combat, there really is no reason to keep them separate other than mental fatigue. As an avid Wargamer, the most tactically sound games present a plethora of options, where you, the human must decide what to do. There is no reason why your character can't be that deciding factor.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a war-gamer too, it's just that you don't _need_ to have that stuff in an RPG, and it can get in the way of the stuff I _do_ want to get out of the game. It breaks immersion in character if suddenly I stop thinking in terms of my character's motivations and more narrative action to start playing a board game with a grid and miniatures and a bunch of mechanics that only apply to this little mini game. I play a role-playing game to get in character and stay there - it's a totally different motivation for why I'd play tactical war-games, and if I'm not in the mood for both, I want to make sure we're able to focus on one of these and make it the best we can.
@@TheTombofLimeGaming I still don't understand why you have to cast aside character motivations as soon as combat starts. Perhaps it's the Wargamer in you that takes the upper hand, that certainly happens to me sometimes. Sure, character motivations become a lot more short term in combat, but also a lot more pressing. What is tactically sound is fully dependent on the goals of the character. Sometimes that's going to be "get the baddy", but "protect the rogue", or "get the princess out of here" could be equally important for a character.
Oh, I agree, you don't cast aside character motivations when combat starts, it's just that 'get the baddy,' 'protect the rogue,' and 'get the princess out of here,' don't require a war-game/board game mini game to resolve. We still have combat in strict role-play games, just not the tactical grid combat - it's not intrinsic to RPGs, so you _can_ play with it (what I call a hybrid), but you can also go without, meaning RPGs and war-games can be separated, or blended as per your preference.
@@TheTombofLimeGaming hmm ok, not sure I'm with you here. Do you still use some form of conflict resolution mechanic? If not, why isn't what you're doing just improv theatre? If yes, isn't it just a different sort of mini game? Or is it a certain amount of "tactical" that distracts from role playing?
4 месяца назад+1
You get too hung up into a specific phrasing that may not be the best to describe what it encompasses. In fact, historically it was first called fantasy wargaming, then fantasy gaming, adventure gaming, storytelling gaming, story gaming, etc. There are infinite labels that we can conjure up to try and describe what happens during a session of... Whatever this activity is, but not necessarily all of those labels capture what that activity actually is, because the map is not the territory (i.e.: platonic Ideas or Forms are not sensible phenomena, and also words are not their referent, if they even have one).
Why is in-character roleplay more roleplay than out of character? I’ve experienced much better roleplay from players that speak only in 3rd person than I have from some players who just do the voice. In character roleplay is a feature, not a requirement of roleplay.
This whole video assumes that combat and roleplay are different. If you aren't roleplaying in combat that's fine but that isn't the way many people play.
In the RPG I'm writing I have a section titled 'Combat is Role-Play' - I think combat _should_ be role-played, but the problem is that so many games treat combat as something fundamentally different than other actions in the game, so much so that you have to stop role-playing and start board gaming in the middle of a session. Not me! In my game at least, combat is handled as role-play, just like any other actions the players might take. You still roll dice, you still describe where you are and what you're doing, it's fast and cinematic and doesn't stop you from role-playing. That's the ideal, anyway.
@@TheTombofLimeGaming I don't think even wargamey combat mechanics are necessarily counter to roleplay they just help adjudicate outcomes. In a social roleplay situation it is easier to imagine what the consequences to certain statements might be. In a combat roleplay situation it might be harder to imagine what the effects of a firebolt fired at a goblin in the dark are without rules to help adjudicate. But yeah I generally agree.
Completely agree. Roleplay is the element I want to maximize in my games. So much so, that I want it to be present in all events that transpire during the game session. I don't like to pause roleplay to enter into a tactical mini wargame. Your description and examples of the idealized use of a form is excellent.
So... maybe play a different game? You know, you can for example check Fiasco or other similiar freeforms, where you will be mainly "roleplaying" or you can play more a "storyplaying game" with a lot of "roleplaying" and zero tactical combat like for example The Between or Brindlewood Bay? Or maybe you want to only roleplay and play the world so you can try a modern FKR style game? If you don't like to pause a roleplay to enter into tactical combat boardgame then instead of post-trad/post-classic rpg hybrids you can play almost anything else it's out there...
I remember the time (30 years ago...) when I GMed for my friend in the school-yard between classes. No dice, just us. A very strong and vivid memory of what freedom of imagination can do to enrich the human experience.
This is why I like White Wolf games. I know, “Vampire”, “Werewolf” and “Mage” are stereotypically LARP-y games with a reputation for attracting the uber nerdy, but I actually like some of the less well-known titles like “Changeling” and “Promethean”. I was once in a “Changeling: The Lost” game where all the players were professional actors (nobody famous, but all members of SAG) and the GM was a film director, and it was the best game I ever played in. I myself am not much of an actor (high school plays and musicals), but they brought the best out of me. A total blast and I so wish I could get into another game like that. There were sessions when we hardly rolled any dice at all - and when we did, the GM gave huge bonuses based on roleplaying quality; meaning that the better character actors never failed….
Good times.
It is unfortunate that when one tells another that they like something over something else, some can't accept it and may try to convert, ridicule, or just dismiss it.
Roleplay has been fractured into "styles" now.
On a low end...you stand up and in a voice you tell the troops to charge. "Roleplay...?"
On a high end...you stay in character as much as possible. All actions are not what "you" would do but what the "character" would do. All actions presented in first person help submerge all at the table in what we are creating.
"I" grab for her wrist trying to control the knife.
Instead of the seperating "my character grabs..."
I've had really cool experiences that are now desirable when emphasizing roleplay.
How to sprinkle in the mechanics even through roleplay is now a thing too.
"You take 27 points of damage."
or...
"The blade slides across your back. It cut deep."
Hopefully you can trust your player to define the information with the description given.
How deep down the rabbit hole will you go?
Just thoughts
This is a completely spurious argument. Definitions, and most things in general in fact, are historically constituted amalgams, not "essences" which can be distilled into some pure ideal object. RPGs as a thing emerge from wargames as the marriage between statistics driven game play mechanics with character focused storytelling. This neatly describes both D&D itself and the design lineage it spawned (other TTRPGS, CRPGs, JPRGs, MMORPGs, etc) in a clean and sensible manner that has been used consistently in that way by most people for over half a century now. The statistics driven mechanics have typically focused on combat due to their origins in wargames, the ease of modelling, etc, but can be about any quantifiable thing. Even FitD games, which heavily de-emphasize both combat and GM authority, are fundamentally RPGs because they are character centered and statistically driven. One can have many fair and valid complaints about how D&D and its kin center combat, or how exactly combat is implemented in this or that edition, but to claim it's not an RPG but a "Hybrid" is ridiculous. You do not get a more "pure" RPG by lopping off the statistical mechanics no more than you get a more "pure" car by disconnecting the parts from the engine block. Most RPGs are "Hybrids" because what you describe as a "Hybrid" is in fact just what an RPG is in the first place. You may as well try to argue that the album Ambient 1 isn't ambient music, or that Doom isn't an FPS. Also, yes, I have seen your subsequent videos on this topic, and I think your attempt to provide clarity to the discussion in fact just muddies the waters because you're trying to impose an ahistorical essentialist framework onto something which is a historically constituted amalgam.
I agree, more-or-less.
Plato's Forms fail to account for the anthropocentric way we view reality, carving it up and making connections between things based on their importance _to us._ This is no different. It's still important though, to look at what makes an RPG unique and different from things like war-games, and I believe there is a fundamental difference in their goal/telos regardless of mechanics or lineage.
You're not the first person to assume that if I want to play a game without the telos of a war-game that I must want to remove statistical mechanics (as if statistical mechanics are exclusive to war-gaming and cannot be used to role-play), but I don't think that at all! I just don't need mechanics that mediate GM-player conflict (as opposed to PC-NPC conflict), and am seeking to create a space (and the terms to go with it) that allow us to speak about this kind of game.
I'd be happy to use whatever terms are accepted, but I'd struggle to agree with the idea that RPGs must have the telos of war-games, and if some RPGs do and some RPGs don't, then we've got two useful categories (as I prefer to play the latter and avoid the former) and would appreciate a way to refer and distinguish them.
As an aside, I wouldn't argue that _Doom_ wasn't an FPS - you spend the majority of the game in first person! But 1998's _Battlezone?_ It's FPS and RTS... maybe that one we'd call a hybrid.
I learned about Tales of the Loop through this video and my friends and I just had our session zero and wow! Even that was more fun than any of the D&D I've played in the last 3 years. Thank you so very much for your thoughts, they're entertaining and insightful
Great vlog! :) And as usual, a few I hope constructive comments:
1. Are you talking about “roleplaying” or “roleplaying GAMES”? It does sound a bit like you want to remove the “GAME” element from “rpg” :)
2. There are play cultures that will be much closer to this “essence” than the post-trad/post-classic rpgs you’re talking about, e.g., various kinds of freeforms, larps, and narrative improv.
3. If this set up of the play consolete is most important to you, then why not always play games like Fiasco, where you have quick character + relationship + situation creation followed by 2 scenes per character, some dramatic tilt, another 2 scenes per character, and a dramatic epilogue? You then have almost only "roleplaying" there.
4. If we adopt your definition of “roleplaying games” it excludes many “storyplaying / storytelling / story games” - fair enough. In this case, “roleplaying games” are a subset of “storyplaying games” but at the same time a subset of “dramatic improv performances”.
5. When talking about hybrids, you only refer to wargames, in which indeed two different modes of play (tactical combat + roleplaying) are very different modes of play. But what about games that combine “emulating genre & storytelling with roleplaying” [Swords without Master] or “world-building with roleplaying” [Microscope]? Would you still say that “roleplaying” is the essence in them?
6. Ofcourse there is no objective truth written in a holy book of all knowledge when it comes to this topic, but even if we assume that “roleplaying” is the essence of “roleplaying games”, from my subjective perspective, “roleplaying” doesn’t mean “play acting” like in theater, larp, or improv but making decisions as a character, considering their motivations, instincts, reactions, and beliefs in a simulated fictional world. So it can be entirely done descriptively in the third person, without the need to act as the character ("my character tells the policeman a funny story, trying to build rapport with him, you know, maybe something about current problems with traffic in our city").
7. It’s interesting how much this hinges on language. In English, we have the term “roleplaying games” (hence the whole fight over nomenclature and the creation of the term “story games”) but in Polish, we have a term that can be translated to “fiction games” or “fiction playing games”, which automatically covers a much broader range of games.
8. There’s also no definition of “roleplaying games” that everyone agrees on, it’s more of a broad amalgam of various elements constituting “rpg”, since exceptions can be found for each element. You know… “rpgs are analog games that” - ANALOG? what about Alice is Missing?!… “they are social games that” - SOCIAL? what about solo rpgs?? etc.
9. I like Baker’s definition that rpgs are games where everyone at the table must agree on what’s happening in the fiction. And that this distinguishes them from board games :) But again, there’s no emphasis on “roleplaying” here, but on “fiction playing”.
Very well said. The question for what you can’t take away without taking everything away is eye-opening.
Ive been experimenting with absract maps in my campaign for pathfinder, the party seems to enjoy the tactics having a representation thats that tangible, but as the gm i do struggle with its influence on roleplay. I try my best to have something in world be mentioned at every turn, to dapple it in around the raw mechanics. Im on the fence on how to proceed but i do think ive decided against having miniatures and maps that are substituting imagination. Relying on small stones and such seems to satisfy this for me at the moment
Edit: two sessions ago was 80% combat in such a manner, last session was 95% mapless exploration and rp. Each session was apparently the best yet
there are too few REALLY interesting abilities in modern ttrpgs. abilities that are thematically rich and NOT combat-centric. i am STARVING for those, and i have not seen them yet... almost. there are some good examples in Heart: City Beneath. one that i remember very well is the ability to dig through any kind of soil with your bare hands. i fell in love with this one at first glance... but didn't take it in my game because GM made it combat-centric. well, not entirely, but i was still afraid of being inefficient. and this fear is the SCOURGE of ttrp gaming. this ability, although not fit for every occasion like a fireball, sets my imagination on fire with what i COULD do with it (even if i end up ditching the idea, pun intented). There are other examples like adhesive spit, ability to stomach any matter, gaze that can kill etc. Another ttrpg that kind of does the same thing is Wildsea. this last one has a good balance between exploration, combat and social interactions (exploration being the leading one). maybe it's the charm of novelty, but just a few sessions in these games made me love them, while dnd never could. and i don't actually think it's the charm of novelty as other enthusiasts that i have argued with repeatedly in thematic chats could only love dnd and other combat centric ttrpgs. and yes, one can do a roleplay heavy game in dnd, no doubts about that. but why then make (like you said) 90% of rules and abilities about combat? there should have been the "dnd combat book", an independent supplement for those who want their game to be a wargame)
Food analogy. The platonic form of food doesn't need a plate drinks, ambience or company, but the way to enhance the food itself is to add all these things that aren't food. When I roleplay I also want things that aren't roleplay to make the roleplay better. For me, the purest roleplay would also be the least enjoyable since it lacks all the auxiliary elements (dice, drinks, mechanics, strategy, music, etc.)
It’s a fine analogy, and I agree.
The project here is not to reduce role-play to a single element just to leave it that way, but rather to identify what’s necessary and sufficient for role-play and make sure we give it the attention it deserves. You can have the finest cutlery ever made, but if your food is trash, your meal will be too.
We also want to make sure we’re picking the right auxiliary elements, ones that facilitate role-play, not preclude or hinder it. Role-playing with mechanics that facilitate role-play is like eating soup from a bowl with a soup spoon. Trying to role-play with mechanics that facilitate war-gaming is like eating soup from a colander with a steak knife.
@@TheTombofLimeGaming Well said. I enjoyed pure strategy, and I enjoy pure roleplay, but I have the most fun with them together. For me, it is as if roleplay is the soup, but strategy is the bowl. (This applies especially when roleplaying dramatically involves knowingly making sub-optimally decisions. I personally enjoy the tension between winning the war and winning the other players' hearts.) My experience is that battle tactics and roleplay each make the other better.
@@TheTombofLimeGaming Also, I really like your videos/channel. Smart, thoughtful, casual, polished, and unique.
I never noticed it before, but the 2001 novel contradicts the spinning station from the movie: in the text you showed, the center specifically spins in a way that to the outside viewer, is static (so a craft can just fly straight into it), yet the movie shows the entire station rotating, and the ship has to match the rotation of the station to be able to get in (because it looks cooler?).
Normally I wouldn't notice such a tiny detail but I have been playing Elite since the 80s and this was a big part of docking into stations (they even used the same music as Kubrick)
Yes, of course it’s worth pursuing a form where roleplaying is maximized.
Part of the key to that process would be to try and tease out the things that make the current forms of the genre comforting and try and find ways to incorporate them in the new form.
For example - character progression, or tactical combat. These are deeply ingrained in D&D, so understanding 1) why and 2) how do you replace them in a way that is still satisfying would be key to making the new form as successful as possible.
I think City of Mist is the most roleplay heavy game I've experienced. It has no mechanics for NPC or initiative, it's entirely based on the player character themes. They literally call the character sheets theme cards and you get multiple to pick aspects your character finds more important than others as bonuses to the rolls, the rolls being for anything you can imagine. The system it self is mystery solving in a noir setting with the supernatural hiding in the mist that normal people can't imagine.
I had typed up a huge response to this only to realize "I should just make a video response" haha.
But basically, exactly on the money. On a totally different hobby that I have, James Hoffmann recently made a video on the difference between a coffee that you personally like and one that's objectively good. An orange tastes like an orange, even if taste is subjective. That's difficult for people to grasp with hobbies in many cases.
Awesome vids man, keep up the good work.
😂 "I should just make a video response" - Yeah, my videos start off the same way!
@@TheTombofLimeGaming It is done, and ended up being much longer winded than intended haha. Hopefully somewhat enjoyable though if you have time to watch it or parts of it.
Good video, new subscriber from the FKR Discord.
Dear Matt I agree with you. I think the closest I have come to, what I think you are describing, is a game called Orbital. I liked it a lot. No GM and no dice. Also Microscope was wonderful.
Thank you very much!
Sincerely,
Alicia from Sweden.
Solid, nuanced take. I appreciated it because I enjoy both RP focused games and hybrids where it’s part war game. I find the use of miniatures at the heart of this topic. When I use miniatures, violent conflict is the primary problem solving method and the tactics of battle often are the focus. The grid and minis reinforce that - whether consciously in D&D or unconsciously in a game like Call of Cthulhu where combat is a last resort. When I play theater of the mind, the conflict tends to be less tactical and more vivid - supporting the story. I like most of the games in the horror genre, so I prefer theater of the mind which focuses on role playing or storytelling over tactical battles and resource management. I do find it interesting how metacurrencies, as found in Modiphius’ 2d20 games or Eden’s Cinematic Unisystem, have an interesting way of having a board game like effect on otherwise story focused games though.
Cool video man. Thanks for the upload!
What I'm attempting to address with other RPG Gamers is... are you ok that the GM roleplays your character for you? Are you ok that the GM moves you on your behalf? Are you ok that the GM says what your character says in the game? If not, we have a solution.
Yep. How am I supposed to role-play if the GM keeps taking my character off of me? Are my actions merely suggestions to the master storyteller, or am I actually a character in a living world?
@@TheTombofLimeGaming it take a GM a lot of guts to admit to being a hog for all those years. But its hard to get them to realize it in the first place.
My Issue with this take is that the platonic ideal of a role playing game is not the same thing as the platonic ideal of role playing. While it is true that a role-play heavy session is closer to the ideal of role playing than of a game (and the same is true in reverse) it is a role-playing game so it should be measured from the ideal of a role playing game. It makes no sense to measure the distance from the ideal chair to a car, they are separate things. they are only related because the platonic ideal of a car (most likely) contains a chair. So the platonic ideal role-playing game would contain the ideal of role-playing and the ideal of games. but we wouldn't measure the ideal role-playing game form the ideal of role-playing, just as we don't measure a car based on how chair-ie it is. So while there isn't a right way to role-play, and I do agree that some role-playing games lean one way or the other, it is still a role-playing game, in the same way that the Transformer Movies are Films and so is 2001, they are just different distances from the platonic ideal.
Yes, a car is not a chair, despite having chairs in it, I’m on board with that.
However! If you were to describe your car as a _Chair Car_ to distinguish it from other cars, you would hope that there was some significant, salient feature of the car that made it different from other cars _that had something to do with chairs!_
If I took the shell of something that everyone agreed was a car and installed one chair, but also replaced the engine with four sets of pedals for the driver and passengers to affect locomotion, and presented it to a friend saying ‘Behold, a _Chair Car,’_ I think my friend would be well within his rights to pull me aside and say ‘that’s great, but dude, _that is clearly a Pedal Car.’_
Games that are predominantly war-games, but bill themselves as Role-Playing Games just because they have some amount of role-playing in them are _Pedal Cars_ parading as _Chair Cars_ just because they have a chair in them.
I’ve got to say, I never thought I’d ever have to construct that particular sentence, so thanks! This was fun to think about.
Now that I think about it, your movie analogy would have been much more sensible!
Consider the movie _Drive_ (2011) which was marketed as an action film à la _The Fast and the Furious_ but movie goers were disappointed to discover that it was more of a dramatic film with far fewer car chases than anticipated. Despite containing some _action,_ _Drive_ is not an _action film_ and people were quite mad about its ‘deceptive’ marketing. So again, we come to this: games that are predominantly war-games, but bill themselves as Role-Playing Games just because they have some amount of role-playing in them are like dramas parading as action films just because they have some action in them.
Or something like that.
@TheTombofLimeGaming I must say, that was a well laid out retort.
However, I would say that it's important to remember that deciding what isn't in a game is as much a part of the design as what is. It is true to say that dnd 5e has tons of rules for war-gaming and almost nothing for role-playing. While this does mean less of the system is about role-playing, it ironically leaves more room to do so. I don't have the exact quote, but when he was asked why he doesn't use a role-play heavy system brennan lee mulligan said (something to the effect) that he knows how he wants to run RP, he doesn't need it to be a system, but he wants a combat heavy system because he doesn't want to have to run it from scratch.
And I think that's why calling it misleading is inaccurate. It brings your own role-play, instead of a role-play buffet like some games. And neither way is a negative they are just different.
That was a strong argument, but if true, is devastating to, at least Dungeons and Dragons as I have participated in, I'd say since the mid-90s and especially since, I'd say 2019. With the exception of an ancient (35+ years) ongoing Greyhawk campaign I was in, in my experience today, players no longer role-play at all and are hostile to me when I role-play. They are 100% tactical and have no use for a character apart from tactical strength. If pressed, they resort to the most tired stereotypes, and derisive of odd choices like druid. Druids are arguable one of the most tactically strong of classes, but they are just too odd and too suspect of some quality-which now I suspect is that they possess an innate motivation, lol... nature-love.
As I say, this is still very alien to me, coming out of the D&D of 1980. Character quirks were assumed part of the play. I don't dismiss the allure of powerful combat buffs then, but the thing was, those didn't exist to the extent they have since 4e. One gained power by playing a very long time and obtaining magic items and spells, a substantial investment of time.
Well I completely get the argument. I will say the one thing that role-play games must have to be that is roles. So even the way your character acts in combat is defined by the rule. So I don't believe that talking as your character is the only way to play a role.
No, I agree with you! Not necessarily just 'talking as your character,' but rather _acting in character_ (of which talking is one kind of action you can take, but, as you say, combat is another). There are ways of doing combat (for example) acting in character and ways of acting out-of-character (what I'd call _metagaming)_ though, and I think the _in character_ actions are what we should prioritise in role-playing games because they're the thing that role-playing games cannot do without without fundamentally being some other kind of game.
Well, Villneuve might actually be in the minority on his statement. Lots of movies are remembered precisely because of dialogue because dialogue's physical manifestation can be just so perfectly shown using film. Voice timbre, cracking, loudness. Facial expression delivering the line. They cannot be reproduced neither in books, nor in radio. Saying that dialogue script is non-native to cinema is correct, saying that dialogue as a whole does not belong to the ideal of cinema... That's just wrong.
Just a sidenote.
Wouldn't a pure "Theater of the mind" game of D&D be considered actual role-play? Without miniatures and battle mats? I know old-school D&D was all about pencil, paper, and dice. The tactical combat side was just optional.
For sure. We pick on D&D a bit, but I imagine you could use any system you wanted to role-play with, it's just that some systems probably lend themselves to role-play better than others.
@@TheTombofLimeGaming Right on! I'm enjoying your content. Thank you
In my opinion it is gambling for the fate of the imaginary self.
It certainly isn't acting, nor telling stories per se. Story is the result of roleplaying.
Very cool and impressive series of videos. Hands down what is your academic background? 🤔I am a psychologist and studied philosophy and literature too.🤓 I smell a lot of those ideas in your videos. 😎
The platonic ideal or primal essence of RPGs is immersion, which we acquire through the act of roleplaying. But we also roleplay during combat, and immersing ourselves in the imaginary battles taking place in the game is another example of roleplaying.
I wonder what your take is on Charisma and other social mechanics... do they assist in role-play or turn those chances we have to actually inhabit our characters into "roll-play"?
I think that social mechanics can be done right, but for the most part designers don't make their utility specific enough and players end up using them _instead_ of role-playing rather than to _inform_ their role-playing. I am on a quest to find the system that does this best, I'll take any recommendations!
"tactical combat isnt roleplay"
i know what you mean, but i have to disagree. when i am in combat in a tactical rpg, i am making combat decisions *as my character would*, with my character's wellbeing and strategic goals in mind. of course the medium it is more abstract than the medium of conversation, but it is still playing the role of a character, and in its own way immerses you in that *role*.
i would rather talk of a distinction between social roleplay and tactical roleplay, if we are going this route.
Well, "pretend" would be pure role-play but not much of a game. And a roleplaying game it is. So by definition every roleplaying game is an hybrid of sorts, with varying degrees of roleplay and rules.
I really hate Plato's idealism, since the idea of the essence of the forms could exist beyond the material world is just silly nonsense to me. If I take that back to the the film and book that had Kubrick and Clarke indeed often very different views on, but then someone would say that only the intention or the director or the author counts and the other can be dismissed as not being the true form. But of course I enjoy the death of the author approach to media criticism and thus feel not forced to take either as gospel but any interpretation that can result is valid.
In character? I mean even if I have a game that really focuses on roleplay, that still does not mean the players have to be in character as character, maybe only talking in first person. There are so many layers to this, that if you want to tell me that roleplay has only to be that narrow definition of yours, then I I would tell you that I have probably never roleplayed. Since, well, I usually look at my characters as dolls I play with, I talk about their actions in third person. Sure, I am very invested in them, and emotionally quite close to them, but I am not my characters nor are my character in any way, shape, or form me. And yet players that lean into character play, immersive experiences in the hobby, quite often tell me how much they enjoy my roleplay.
Hell, I would even agree with you that the tactical gaming that is so prevalent in the hobby can detract from character expressions or an immersive experience in the fiction as fiction. But for me all the ability rolls are just also that, that characters are too often just meeples in an imaginary board game and with all the focus on the character capabilities the game commonly is no better then as any tactical game, since neither is exploring the human condition or providing the characters with any kind of narrative arc. Following that thought barely any system would actually qualify as roleplaying games, one of the few would be Fiasco, and funnily enough that is something plenty of people would not even call a roleplaying game but use other terms like storygame for it. And I ay that as someone who works on her own system, and that could not be any less a hybrid, since like I mentioned even all a capability porn that most games indulge is for me too gamey and not enough about the expression of characters. Basically I want to know who the characters are and how they change and not just what they are capable of doing, we are human beings and not human doings after all!
I think even Plato had issues with his own metaphysics by the end (see Parmenides, but not really, it’s very annoying).
From your description, yes, maybe under this definition you haven’t played the role of a character, but just played ‘with’ a character instead. I’m not surprised it helped other players get immersed though, most GMs speak in third person about their NPCs!
‘…characters are too often just meeples in an imaginary board game and with all the focus on the character capabilities the game commonly is no better then as any tactical game…’
Totally agree. Despite this though, no matter what your game system focusses on, it’s still up to the players how they play it. By setting the standard of in character role-play the way that we have, players will never mention their abilities, stats, or mechanics, and it makes it much easier to focus on who the characters are. Any system might be able to be used to role-play (some make it harder than others), but you still need players that are on board with what you’re trying to do - you need players who want to be in character, who are committed to being in character, who put role-play as their superordinate goal. Perhaps you need a good social contract.
How do you go about writing your scripts?
Hi Nicolas! I have some dot points on the stuff I want to talk about with the major things I want to address, then I just start talking. I take a break every now and then to sip some tea, check my dot points, then go again and cut it all together at the end. Well... I had those quotes written down verbatim.
I'm flabbergasted that you would have the audacity to even suggest that DND, the undisputed king of ttrpg's, isn't actually a roleplaying game!
You're right of course. However, choosing to come out and say it on the Internet makes either very brave or very dumb, and since you were clever enough to figure it out in the first place, I'm going to guess it's the former. Either way, you walk a dangerous road my friend, and I wish you the best of luck. You're going to need it.
Brave and dumb aren't mutually exclusive 😄 but hey, I ran D&D4e (the most board-game-y version they've made) for a long time. I've done my time in the trenches.
You literally just told in your storyteller video, that one play style was wrong. So you did that video, what you said not to do in this video. 😮
😮 indeed!
Well, let's see if I can reconcile them.
Here, try one of these:
a) there is more than one way to role-play, but there are not infinite ways, or;
b) there is more than one way to role-play, but you're allowed to have opinions on which ways you think are better and express justifications for those reasons.
Hopefully one of these gets me out of being a hypocrite!
The Platonic form of role play is not a game. It's an activity adjacent to gaming, but probably closer to other creative and performing arts.
This is a big issue in the wod fanbase with differing thamatic approaches to the settinh. the fandom has rotted due to the obssesion that playing certain types of play are wrong and its been going on with decades.
I'm not sure why you exclude role play from tactical combat, there really is no reason to keep them separate other than mental fatigue. As an avid Wargamer, the most tactically sound games present a plethora of options, where you, the human must decide what to do. There is no reason why your character can't be that deciding factor.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a war-gamer too, it's just that you don't _need_ to have that stuff in an RPG, and it can get in the way of the stuff I _do_ want to get out of the game. It breaks immersion in character if suddenly I stop thinking in terms of my character's motivations and more narrative action to start playing a board game with a grid and miniatures and a bunch of mechanics that only apply to this little mini game.
I play a role-playing game to get in character and stay there - it's a totally different motivation for why I'd play tactical war-games, and if I'm not in the mood for both, I want to make sure we're able to focus on one of these and make it the best we can.
@@TheTombofLimeGaming I still don't understand why you have to cast aside character motivations as soon as combat starts. Perhaps it's the Wargamer in you that takes the upper hand, that certainly happens to me sometimes.
Sure, character motivations become a lot more short term in combat, but also a lot more pressing. What is tactically sound is fully dependent on the goals of the character. Sometimes that's going to be "get the baddy", but "protect the rogue", or "get the princess out of here" could be equally important for a character.
Oh, I agree, you don't cast aside character motivations when combat starts, it's just that 'get the baddy,' 'protect the rogue,' and 'get the princess out of here,' don't require a war-game/board game mini game to resolve. We still have combat in strict role-play games, just not the tactical grid combat - it's not intrinsic to RPGs, so you _can_ play with it (what I call a hybrid), but you can also go without, meaning RPGs and war-games can be separated, or blended as per your preference.
@@TheTombofLimeGaming hmm ok, not sure I'm with you here. Do you still use some form of conflict resolution mechanic? If not, why isn't what you're doing just improv theatre? If yes, isn't it just a different sort of mini game? Or is it a certain amount of "tactical" that distracts from role playing?
You get too hung up into a specific phrasing that may not be the best to describe what it encompasses. In fact, historically it was first called fantasy wargaming, then fantasy gaming, adventure gaming, storytelling gaming, story gaming, etc. There are infinite labels that we can conjure up to try and describe what happens during a session of... Whatever this activity is, but not necessarily all of those labels capture what that activity actually is, because the map is not the territory (i.e.: platonic Ideas or Forms are not sensible phenomena, and also words are not their referent, if they even have one).
Why is in-character roleplay more roleplay than out of character? I’ve experienced much better roleplay from players that speak only in 3rd person than I have from some players who just do the voice. In character roleplay is a feature, not a requirement of roleplay.
This whole video assumes that combat and roleplay are different. If you aren't roleplaying in combat that's fine but that isn't the way many people play.
In the RPG I'm writing I have a section titled 'Combat is Role-Play' - I think combat _should_ be role-played, but the problem is that so many games treat combat as something fundamentally different than other actions in the game, so much so that you have to stop role-playing and start board gaming in the middle of a session.
Not me! In my game at least, combat is handled as role-play, just like any other actions the players might take. You still roll dice, you still describe where you are and what you're doing, it's fast and cinematic and doesn't stop you from role-playing. That's the ideal, anyway.
@@TheTombofLimeGaming I don't think even wargamey combat mechanics are necessarily counter to roleplay they just help adjudicate outcomes. In a social roleplay situation it is easier to imagine what the consequences to certain statements might be. In a combat roleplay situation it might be harder to imagine what the effects of a firebolt fired at a goblin in the dark are without rules to help adjudicate. But yeah I generally agree.