What is good Role-Play?
Moderator: Moderators
What is good Role-Play?
That's about it. I'm wondering what makes good roleplay for people. For me I like to see players get into the game. I like to see when their reactions mirror what their character's should be.
Good roleplay is making use of yourself in your character to make the story furthered. If the entire group is enjoying it, it is good roleplay, if you are the only one enjoying it, and doesnt do anything for the group somewhere down the road, then its ok roleplay, so long as that isnt continuous so that you are the only one ever enjoying it then it is bad roleplay.
Play the game, not the rules.
good read (Note to self Maxus sucks a barrel of cocks.)
Swordslinger wrote:Or fuck it... I'm just going to get weapon specialization in my cock and whip people to death with it. Given all the enemies are total pussies, it seems like the appropriate thing to do.
Lewis Black wrote:If the people of New Zealand want to be part of our world, I believe they should hop off their islands, and push 'em closer.
-
- Apprentice
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 2:02 pm
I like to see complex characters in play, and I like to see the characters grow and change from the effects of the story. Sometimes complexity is just an excuse for angst, which I admit, but its the worst and not the best of the trope. Leto the II is a dark character, but certainly not an angsty one.
- RobbyPants
- King
- Posts: 5201
- Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm
Re: What is good Role-Play?
That's part of it, for me.MGuy wrote:That's about it. I'm wondering what makes good roleplay for people. For me I like to see players get into the game. I like to see when their reactions mirror what their character's should be.
I like interacting with the world and the people in it. As MC, I feel I'm doing a good job if the players decide to go check in on an NPC they haven't heard from in a while.
Other than that, I like making decisions I wouldn't personally make but that my character would. I guess that's pretty much the base definition of RP and escapism, but I do find it fun.
- PoliteNewb
- Duke
- Posts: 1053
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:23 am
- Location: Alaska
- Contact:
Good roleplay is when the characters make decisions based on whether or not that decision/action is appropriate for the character, regardless of metagame concerns. When people try to preserve immersion, rather than breaking it with "he's only got 2 HP left" or "I can jump off the roof, it's only 3d6 damage".
I am judging the philosophies and decisions you have presented in this thread. The ones I have seen look bad, and also appear to be the fruit of a poisonous tree that has produced only madness and will continue to produce only madness.
--AngelFromAnotherPin
believe in one hand and shit in the other and see which ones fills up quicker. it will be the one you are full of, shit.
--Shadzar
--AngelFromAnotherPin
believe in one hand and shit in the other and see which ones fills up quicker. it will be the one you are full of, shit.
--Shadzar
I like characters to change and grow over time. It's one of the reasons I don't like writing up character backgrounds anymore. For me a large part of roleplaying is also having clearly defined hopes, dreams, fears and goals for characters. I find proactive PCs both fun to play and MC for, since it causes the PCs to really become the driving force behind the story.
Psychic Robot wrote:but is it a bad enough game to rescue the President?Pathfinder is still a bad game
I like evolving characters and an evolving world. The world should have an impact on what my character is doing, but conversely, my character's actions should leave an imprint. For a lot of people, a world's believability is based in its physics, but for me, a world's believability is based on my ability to interact with it.
I have always been disappointed in the fact that there is no reputation mechanic in D&D.
I have always been disappointed in the fact that there is no reputation mechanic in D&D.
My son makes me laugh. Maybe he'll make you laugh, too.
- RadiantPhoenix
- Prince
- Posts: 2668
- Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 10:33 pm
- Location: Trudging up the Hill
Would the statements "He's almost down!" or, "I can jump off the roof, it won't cause me serious harm," be better?PoliteNewb wrote:Good roleplay is when the characters make decisions based on whether or not that decision/action is appropriate for the character, regardless of metagame concerns. When people try to preserve immersion, rather than breaking it with "he's only got 2 HP left" or "I can jump off the roof, it's only 3d6 damage".
EDIT: typo
Last edited by RadiantPhoenix on Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
The best feedback I have got from a player was that they were able to visualise what was going on in the story. That made it easy for them to react to the campaign world in an appropriate manner. I use appropriate rather than realistic, coz of fantastic beasts and magic and everything, but there is probably a better word.
Sometimes Immersive players can take things a little too far, by that I mean they are overly critical of people using PK (player knowledge) and tend to look down on other players who don't have the same 'pure' experience that they claim to have. I've never had to worry about people wearing a cape and jumping on the furniture wielding a toy sword...The toy sword bit yes, but no capes fortunately.
Sometimes Immersive players can take things a little too far, by that I mean they are overly critical of people using PK (player knowledge) and tend to look down on other players who don't have the same 'pure' experience that they claim to have. I've never had to worry about people wearing a cape and jumping on the furniture wielding a toy sword...The toy sword bit yes, but no capes fortunately.
- PoliteNewb
- Duke
- Posts: 1053
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:23 am
- Location: Alaska
- Contact:
Yes, much better, actually. I know it sounds nitpicky to some.RadiantPhoenix wrote:Would the statements "He's almost down!" or, "I can jump off the roof, it won't cause me serious harm," be better?PoliteNewb wrote:Good roleplay is when the characters make decisions based on whether or not that decision/action is appropriate for the character, regardless of metagame concerns. When people try to preserve immersion, rather than breaking it with "he's only got 2 HP left" or "I can jump off the roof, it's only 3d6 damage".
EDIT: typo
I am judging the philosophies and decisions you have presented in this thread. The ones I have seen look bad, and also appear to be the fruit of a poisonous tree that has produced only madness and will continue to produce only madness.
--AngelFromAnotherPin
believe in one hand and shit in the other and see which ones fills up quicker. it will be the one you are full of, shit.
--Shadzar
--AngelFromAnotherPin
believe in one hand and shit in the other and see which ones fills up quicker. it will be the one you are full of, shit.
--Shadzar
- Judging__Eagle
- Prince
- Posts: 4671
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: Lake Ontario is in my backyard; Canada
Well, I describe good roleplay as describing actions based on how the rules say those actions play out. If I play a character that makes constant hide and move silently checks in a dungeon, you can bet that they're passively doing so in a tavern. Using your characters actual options, not the ones that the player has decided to give their character. Of course, psychology of a character will very often shape opinions about different options. It's a mix of understanding the system, and the psychology of the character.
The Gaming Den; where Mathematics are rigorously applied to Mythology.
While everyone's Philosophy is not in accord, that doesn't mean we're not on board.
While everyone's Philosophy is not in accord, that doesn't mean we're not on board.
Personally, I think your preferences are indicative of being able to translate mechanics into a good story. Someone who uses terminology like "he only has 2 HP left" comes off as playing a minis game, rather than roleplaying.PoliteNewb wrote:Yes, much better, actually. I know it sounds nitpicky to some.
My son makes me laugh. Maybe he'll make you laugh, too.
Its not trite at all. I've always thought that was what the game is about. Even with all the arguments and fuming on here at the end of the day it is all about having fun. Fun for me is when I'm DMing and I "see" my players getting into character. When they come to me later telling me they are going home to have a proper funeral for their character. When I hear them talking about a campaign months after the fact. That makes me happy to play the game.
When I'm playing on the other hand I want to lose myself in my character. I want to be able to make witty statements, dramatize, be creative, etc whenever I can. I want to laugh with my character, cry with him, feel the excitement of success and the disappointment and frustration of failure. Its like acting with more dice.
When I'm playing on the other hand I want to lose myself in my character. I want to be able to make witty statements, dramatize, be creative, etc whenever I can. I want to laugh with my character, cry with him, feel the excitement of success and the disappointment and frustration of failure. Its like acting with more dice.
Isn't it called cooperative storytelling for a reason?
My son makes me laugh. Maybe he'll make you laugh, too.
-
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 717
- Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 12:52 pm
1. Character Development potential (Negates Sueism)
2. Both goods and bads (Makes for an actual character, not a cardboard cut-out of one)
3. Consistency (Mentioned earlier by others)
4. Staying in-character
That's about all I can think of right now without elaborating. Also, what is good role-play to some might be crappy for others.
2. Both goods and bads (Makes for an actual character, not a cardboard cut-out of one)
3. Consistency (Mentioned earlier by others)
4. Staying in-character
That's about all I can think of right now without elaborating. Also, what is good role-play to some might be crappy for others.
"Lurker and fan of random stuff." - Icy's occupation
sabs wrote:And Yes, being Finnish makes you Evil.
virgil wrote:And has been successfully proven with Pathfinder, you can just say you improved the system from 3E without doing so and many will believe you to the bitter end.
-
- Knight
- Posts: 491
- Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 8:28 pm
Yes, but there are those who don't care for that part of the games.Maj wrote:Isn't it called cooperative storytelling for a reason?
Play the game, not the rules.
good read (Note to self Maxus sucks a barrel of cocks.)
Swordslinger wrote:Or fuck it... I'm just going to get weapon specialization in my cock and whip people to death with it. Given all the enemies are total pussies, it seems like the appropriate thing to do.
Lewis Black wrote:If the people of New Zealand want to be part of our world, I believe they should hop off their islands, and push 'em closer.
Good RP is having pathology, goals and moativations.
FrankTrollman wrote:I think Grek already won the thread and we should pack it in.
Chamomile wrote:Grek is a national treasure.
Sadly, more games are being made for those people that do not care for the cooperative storytelling game.sabs wrote:And some of us don't care to play with those people.shadzar wrote:Yes, but there are those who don't care for that part of the games.Maj wrote:Isn't it called cooperative storytelling for a reason?
Modern RPGs are moving more towards CPGs (Character Playing Games), as the character is becoming more important than the story, and characters need not cooperation to play, as they are the property of but a single player.
Play the game, not the rules.
good read (Note to self Maxus sucks a barrel of cocks.)
Swordslinger wrote:Or fuck it... I'm just going to get weapon specialization in my cock and whip people to death with it. Given all the enemies are total pussies, it seems like the appropriate thing to do.
Lewis Black wrote:If the people of New Zealand want to be part of our world, I believe they should hop off their islands, and push 'em closer.
- Judging__Eagle
- Prince
- Posts: 4671
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: Lake Ontario is in my backyard; Canada
Why the fuck is anyone going to play at your fucking game if they're not allowed to mother-fucking storytell?
Seriously? What the fuck? Even wargaming is ultimately about storytelling. You're trying to resolve how the story of those guys and these dudes are duking it out for the objective, and who wins, and what it cost to achieve it. As well as the fallout of said events.
Everyone at the table had better be able to contribute to the storytelling, if not they're just passive participants, and/or minor characters; and that's just plain wrong and unfair.
Ideally, the characters will contribute equally in every scene. Traps should be included as part of combat encounters, diplomacy as part of travel encounters, and by throwing lots of potential things at the group at once, everyone will try to take on a different challenge.
The discussions on how Inception was a good model on how Shadowrun Matrix running could work is not a bad way to think about how to make more encounters more inclusive of more PCs, thus allowing them more chances to shine as a group, not as individuals. Something that D&D was never originally about, and every effort to make the system operate that way has been fraught with problems.
Seriously, for Combat encounters to encourage collective play, the whole group needs to add their dice to a collective pool and use them to resolve the whole encounter. If not we still have the problems of hyper-diplomats and uber-chargers; becuase the game never was about working as a group, but rather as a bunch of heroes who are grudgingly/happily allied for a common goal.
Seriously? What the fuck? Even wargaming is ultimately about storytelling. You're trying to resolve how the story of those guys and these dudes are duking it out for the objective, and who wins, and what it cost to achieve it. As well as the fallout of said events.
Everyone at the table had better be able to contribute to the storytelling, if not they're just passive participants, and/or minor characters; and that's just plain wrong and unfair.
Ideally, the characters will contribute equally in every scene. Traps should be included as part of combat encounters, diplomacy as part of travel encounters, and by throwing lots of potential things at the group at once, everyone will try to take on a different challenge.
The discussions on how Inception was a good model on how Shadowrun Matrix running could work is not a bad way to think about how to make more encounters more inclusive of more PCs, thus allowing them more chances to shine as a group, not as individuals. Something that D&D was never originally about, and every effort to make the system operate that way has been fraught with problems.
Seriously, for Combat encounters to encourage collective play, the whole group needs to add their dice to a collective pool and use them to resolve the whole encounter. If not we still have the problems of hyper-diplomats and uber-chargers; becuase the game never was about working as a group, but rather as a bunch of heroes who are grudgingly/happily allied for a common goal.
The Gaming Den; where Mathematics are rigorously applied to Mythology.
While everyone's Philosophy is not in accord, that doesn't mean we're not on board.
While everyone's Philosophy is not in accord, that doesn't mean we're not on board.