I know what my preferences are. I will bet you know yours too.
What is odd to me is that a solution to ubiquitous problem is obvious. It is all about goodness of fit with your fellow players...in your group.
For example, cheese slinging optimized characters are fine among similarly designed characters and presumably in a scaled up setting meant to challenge. The only way this is problematic is if there is a an RP designed character who cannot hang or standard challenges that don't offer enough challenge. However, in my opinion, 5e is so robust that standard array non optimized characters should survive at least.
In other settings, players want immersion and improbable unthemed choices sabotage the fun. Cheese takes some folks out of the game and can ruin the feelings they are trying to create and indulge in.
In the end, I like to try fun mechanics but couched in character which means I might be effective but am rarely "the best" in terms of numbers...
Thus I like playing with largely like-minded folks and that is ok. It's ok with me if you do the same. You are more likely to have fun and that is
Goal...whether we have an identical path there or not. Instead of ranting we need to try recruiting...people that approach the game in a compatible way for our respective groups.
I agree that as a result of bounded accuracy, there is less of a schism between optimized and concept characters. Therefore, the true barrier to fun in a mixed group is player preference/tolerance for other play styles. My bet is that at least 80% of all players can play in a mixed group because they can be flexible and tolerant of optimizers/role players or they themselves enjoy a play style that is a mixture of optimizing & roleplaying.
Its not even a choice between optimising and roleplaying. You can happily do both.
The choices are between optimising and non-optimising (concept playing?) , and between roleplaying and . . . not-roleplaying. (boardgaming? tech-playing? I'm not sure whether that style has a name.)
Rhenny wrote:
Given that AL is trying to bring in new players, I don't mind creating a few min/maxed combat "characters" (with lots of to-hit bonus but no character personality work) so the new guys are rewarded with results, not stuck being...
Captain Kirk wrote:
Captain_Kobold wrote:
The games I run and play in are generally very roleplay heavy and low on combat, and normally in low levels (1-5, can't recall ever being higher than 8)
And often have some variants off "not slave to a dice roll when the player describes or roleplay something awesome, that should be within their capacity"
I like having characters who are competent at what they're meant to do, and like having enough grasp of the system to avoid these.
UNLESS the premise of the game is the characters *aren't* competent adventurers, in which case I gleefully play incompetent characters.
What generally dislike is obscure combations. Such as the dreaded spikechain/combat reflexes/spring attack combo in 3E.
Esp the case if little attempt is made to justify why the character has such obscureness.
5E as it currently stands generally seems to have far limited range for this; if you want to play a fighty type, then... fighter tends to work well. Most of the classes work as they say on the tin. (Although a few niggles like Hunter's Mark seeing to be so important for Rangers to be competively combat worthy)
Multiclassing and feats not only having a very big "DM MUST SAY YES!" sticker over it, but generally multiclassing is for diversity rather than power.
The only "overpowered" multiclass build I've seen has been the Fighter/ Assassin Rogue archer build that combines Action Surge, Multiple attacks and Assassinate to have a barrage of auto-cirticing shots... However even this relies upon the character having a surprise round which is far from gauranteed.
Not a massive fan of Polearm Master builds, but they at least use a weapon that makes sense for the role, and inherently limited by 1 Reaction/round.
I've seen the maths for Sharpshooter/Great weapon mastery being too powerful but -5 to hit penalty still seems something I'd want to avoid myself.
If it's overpowered at level 16+ I also just don't care, I almost certainly won't be playing at those levels.
There are a few non-combo glitches in 5E, but mostly this can be fixed by the DM going "Sorry, no, your summoned pixies can't cast polymorph"
I also enjoy a bit of theorycrafting for it's own sake, often without the intent of ever using it. - Got a Ranger/Monk build that combines Hunter's Mark and flurry of blows that I vaguely intend to post somewhen.
Vahnyu wrote:
warpiglet wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
warpiglet wrote:
Ok. So there is no such thing as a player style...no terms can describe style...and there is no such thing even in the minority in the community that occurs to warrant discussion. Holy Moses.
The creator of the game and countless others who have written about d and d before are delusional?
I'm all about inclusion but this is too pc to square with my experiences
warpiglet wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Ok then. I have played with individuals who stray to one pole and I prefer to play with those that don't, period. I still submit that goodness of fit is more important than the style per se. You will whip me into shape eventually.
But whatever the case, the dichotomy need not destroy the hobby. I am usually simply happy to learn someone plays and to hear about their adventures. "Being in the middle" usually means I have an enjoyable experience
warpiglet wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
You you seem to want to make a point about semantics here. Factually, many use the term roll play to the extent that everyone in this thread has an understanding of what it refers to. I don't have particular sensitivity to the term and could care less if some people are upset by it. Be confident in what you like.
My point is that there are many playstyles. Again, this is a fact---there are many ways to play. Lastly, I think the remedy is play the game you want with people who share your vision, not to disparage diverse opinion.
It seems patently obvious to me, but the regular ranting and debate suggests it is not clear to everyone. Pretending there are not play styles that are different/preferable to an individual solves nothing.
Debating the shared vocabulary of a large portion of the community just kicks the can down the road too. I can play with most folks (most grown ups
can "get along" but some have very divergent styles that are not a fit with others). Just look around at the boards...I did not singly dream this up recently. People have noted this sort of thing for decades since the earliest days of the game.
"More combat" doesn't mean "less roleplay." Combat is roleplaying because roleplaying is self-evidently playing a role. You're an adventurer. Sometimes that includes fighting stuff. That's your role.
"More focus on mechanics" doesn't mean "less focus on story." Mechanics resolve uncertainty in actions and thus contribute to the creation of story. Will the story be about you hitting and kill the orc or it doing the same to you? Will the story be about you convincing the king to fund your expedition or being thrown in a dungeon? Roll to find out when those outcomes are uncertain.
If you find that you are rolling a lot of dice, there is one of two things going on (maybe even both): (1) You're bad at coming up with actions that have a certain outcome and (2) Your DM relies on die rolls for almost everything. In the latter case, the drawback of that approach is that roleplaying can diminish when players feel their die rolls, rather than their decisions and characterization, always determine success. If it seems like no matter how awesome and appropriate your idea the DM requires a roll anyway, consider asking the DM to balance deciding on success (or failure) and asking for rolls.
warpiglet wrote:
"Rollplayer" implies that one isn't roleplaying, and since D&D is a roleplaying-game.... it seems like a pretty thinly veiled insult, to me.
Reius wrote:
kalil wrote:
Ah, I get it now. warpiglet starting a topic to say "let's all get along" was really a secret plot to incite a riot amongst the posters! How divinely insidious!
I mean, just look at the username. warpiglet. Should have known what to expect...should have known. 
Eh. Its a fair point. In terms of semantics, "role" within the game or group is just as technically correct as the more theatrical definition.
It could even be argued that "roleplaying" as tank, healer or DPS is more correct than roleplaying out a particular character's motications and personality.
Maybe we need new words to distinguish between in-character and out-of-character decision making and players who almost exclusively use one or the other.
kalil wrote:
But the whole point is getting missed. There is no wrong way to play---just find people who like your style and you're golden. No need for the divisions and arguments about the right way to play.
I just started an office group where we went old school and rolled each stat 3D6 and had to accept what we rolled the first time.
For many - this has been an eye opening experience ;)
Auticus wrote:
I did 3D6 from 88 - 1997 or so. (about when i was about to get out of the army) when we switched to 4d6 drop lowest.
The guys here who have played since the 80s seem to think that was one of the official ways as well (3D6) so ... *shrug*
I remember there being several methods in 2nd edition. I didn't start getting behind point buy until 4th ed though.
I'll have to read the book when I get home to see if 2nd edition actually had a default or 'standard'. I remember my characters in the RPGA in high school were all 3D6 as well.
Vahnyu wrote:
Auticus wrote:
Reius wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Could be misremembered yeah. I haven't played AD&D since 2000 so 15 years is a lot of time to pass to remember details. We just started a 2nd edition game and tonight is our first game so I will look.
Why I like it is that it curbs min/maxing since you have to work with what you rolled, so its more difficult to make a super hero. (those are the games I prefer)
For our game tonight we used 2D6 + 6 for each attribute and placed them where we wanted. Thats not a bad way I think, except that no one has low stats really since the lowest you can get is an 8 and thats if you roll snake eyes. (we're all 11-16 in our statline (6 players))
Well, I don't know about you, but given how AD&D 1e (and prior to that, OD&D ) is dungeon-heavy, and the old legend that tells you about X special warriors and the game revolving about these special warriors and not the entire army… Well, you get my point.
I’m completely in favor of roleplaying and story and such. But, to the facts: playing a role in a party (be it healer, DPS, tank, support, jack-of-all-trades, useless) seems to be roleplaying as well.
To be fair, people ask about more accurate terms, and then other people say that there isn’t other terms. But, in fact, it does. Many games have written – while these are idealized concepts and most players are a mix or two – about play style terminologies in a much more organized and detailed form than “Roleplayer” vs. “Rollplayer”. Now, I don’t say that using these terms is wrong, I’m all for freedom of speech and such (more than most people I know), so I hardly get offended for that. But, in fact, there are more accurate descriptions. I remember with kindness the play-style part of the D&D 4e DMG. The book separated them in this manner:
- Actor
- Explorer
- Instigator
- Power Gamer
- Slayer
- Storyteller
- Thinker
- Watcher
Outside D&D, I have heard about Pathfinder who does an even more accurate classification. Does someone care enough about it to post?
Where did the conflict of rolling dice to resolve action and roleplaying a character come from? Do both. I'm not going to tell the guy with the 8 charisma fighter that he can't contribute to a social encounter just because his concept isn't a silver-tongued diplomat. Sure the deck is stacked against him but if his in-character words are amazing (either really good for the situation or just really in-character), I'm likely to to lower the DC by a category when he makes his check. I don't want to discourage people from making mechanically cool characters because they're worried about how they'll hold up outside of combat situations. When the characters are mechanically strong, I get to make more interesting encounters, and when they're not fighting something, I still try to treat their encounters similarly, i.e. good choice of words in a talking situation is kinda like attacking unseen or flanking, and deserves a bonus. Since good roleplay gets rewarded like good combat tactics, the players roleplay more, and by doing it more, get better at it so they have a lot of fun with it.
On a tangent, I often give roleplay challenges to players. Before we even play a single session, I offer a bonus feat to players who can expand their background information out to a typed page. Some tell me their character's life story, some tell me the character's principles, and one monk even told me how he derived his martial arts style from watching children play games. I have asked players to expand on a different aspect of the character in a similar fashion to make up exp for a missed session and incorporate their written information into their roleplay.
The players who I have seen who try to let the dice decide everything with minimal input are mostly shy about roleplaying. It's a good practice for a DM to ease new players into roleplay by showing off a lot of NPC personalities, including personalities that would make a less confident person feel silly to roleplay. Experienced roleplayers (like the previously mentioned monk roleplaying his hide-and-seek fighting style) help out too. New roleplayers are afraid of being wrong, so they need to see that there's not much that constitutes wrong roleplaying.
Vahnyu wrote:
we do combat every game with varying amount of problem solving and social interactions. None of it is bad. Hell the game started out as a war game. My point is these are all valid things and that the only wrong thing to do is to hammer a square peg in a round hole in terms of group preferences. None of it is wrong. I compromise in everything save cheese. But that's MY hangup. I found a solution: I play with others who are in the ballpark and I need not get red faced about how others play.
I don't see why this isn't a universal way to go. I won't be hateful about others groups, I just politely gravitate toward what I prefer. Works every time....
I don't think that the word "rollplayer" should be derogatory. Just like "power gamer" shouldn't be derogatory. It is a word used to describe a way of playing or a play style. Its only derogatory when someone makes it such.
Orethalion wrote:
Auticus wrote:
Auticus wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
warpiglet wrote:
Matau99 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Medians
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Argument from Authority is also a falacy. Just FYI...
ChrisCarlson wrote:
I am very much into creating settings and elaborate NPC's with plots and twists. I enjoy adventures where you need to know the story and catch clues within the adventures to win the combat encounters. In fact I love watching a novice get his ass kicked because he goes into an encounter not having picked up the knowledge he needs and get his ass handed to him because of it. I love the encounters where you can have a min./maxed fully optimized character and lose where a guy with an average character that really picked up the plot and elements of the story can go in and clean house. However, there are times, every once in a great while, that I just want to kick in the door, kill the critter, and take his loot. I have enjoyed pure mini games too, and just playing encounters as an exercise in combat and knowing the rules, I do not call that roleplaying when we do that, and it's not what I look for in a game on a regular basis.
Vahnyu wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
This was becoming a productive discussion until people started talking about logical fallacies.
Just kidding - it was never going to be productive.
The part I find interesting about all these discussions about styles of play is terms like optimizer, min/max, and power gamer all seem to refer to combat oriented characters. It's as if combat PCs are the only concepts that can be optimized or power-gamed. Why can't a linguist/diplomat with 18 Cha and 16 languages be optimized? Why isn't my farmer min/maxed for agriculture? Sure, they might be a liability in combat situations, but if combat is not central to the story (or if the character is not central to combat), then min/maxing and optimizing take on a different focus.
P.S.
Proposal for new terms:
-- Tactical playstyle/player (as opposed to "roll"play): this style is played with more emphasis on dice rolling; characters in this style are typically generated with a focus on combat ability or skill use.
-- Theatrical playstyle/player: this style is played with more emphasis on drama and story telling; characters in this style are typically given more background and personality to present in social interactions.
Edit: Just realized even these terms aren't inclusive. I already thought of another (conceptual style), and I'm still not sure if I hit all the bases.
Vahnyu wrote:
How about this: labels and categories are either overly broad and vague or exclusively limiting, inherently. ?
Why don't we stop trying to subdivide into clans?
Now, who's with me against these idiotic teams?
Yeah! Let's form a team of team-haters!
bawylie wrote:
I am against "teams" because they are unnecessary. You need only find people that like to play a compatible style whatever that may be. Instead of debating the merits of a particular play style, we would be better off finding players we as individuals actually enjoy interacting with. As such, I don't think there is a problem.
Now, add in high school debate team antics (on any thread really) and main points are obscured, we argue about men made of straw and try to "win" non arguments.
Some would say they get along with any and all players. Ironically (oh please lord here is hoping no one gives me a freshman class English lit lecture on the term ironic) many of these same individuals struggle to accept concepts they don't like on a forum---held by people that they won't see ever---but suggest that all play styles are every bit as palatable as any other: to them.
I don't believe it.
I also don't believe other people's way of doing things is wrong for them.
I do think some individuals make better gaming partners for other individuals and that linking up with them is the goal.
bawylie wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
cassi_brazuca wrote:
Reius wrote:
In an effort to understand the terms a little better, I ask the question "is a chess player a roleplayer?"
After all, chess pieces have different abilities (pawn, rook, bishop, etc) and chess pieces level up (when pawns reach the 8th rank). Those are RPG mechanics.
The reason I ask is that I use the term "rollplayer" to describe a person who treats their character, and the whole roleplaying game, exactly like a chess game. They don't think of decisions, or motivations, or "why a character do this" - they just make the best move to win the game.
Greenstone.Walker wrote:
Chess is not an RPG. The term "roleplayer" has no meaning in that context. If someone chooses to roleplay while playing chess, that has nothing to do with the game (unless is some kinda homebrewed chess game). D&D is an RPG. It involves playing a role and rolling dice. People have many different motivations for playing the game. We should respect that.
Reius wrote:
Auticus wrote:
Greenstone.Walker wrote:
The Roll vs Role Debate. Is this UseNet? Is it the 90s?
No?
Good. Forget about it. It was the grandday of GNS and edition waring. Nerds looking for excuses to look down on eachother. Trillions of electrons slaughtered for no reason. Senseless tragedy.
Thanks for bringing it up.
Reading comprehension fails alll around. Thanks for your constructive post. I am glad u got in a snarky comment.
Did you read the first post, or see a key word you didn't like and get inflamed? I agree the debate is pointless, that was my point. And look around, it goes on, so some people need to chill--again my point. However, a few intolerant people and debate club amateurs made another good point...many varieties of intolerance around here.
This place is like a university where everything and I mean everything is considered hate speech mysoginistic or whatever. I was advocating tolerance for other playstyles since some need a reminder. Go ahead, actually read the original post.
Now now read this in comic book guy's (Simpsons fame) voice.
Tony_Vargas wrote:
warpiglet wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
warpiglet wrote:
Hehehe...nope, still think it's u ;)
Vahnyu wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
This is rich. Your are upset because I used histrionic?!
Vahnyu wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
warpiglet wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
If people are so offended or sensitive about the term, and are willing to protest so strenuously in public, then I think the term should just be avoided out of respect for people's feelings.
I first encountered the r-word in Dragon magazine articles, where it was a common topic of discussion in the 1990s. I just grabbed a mid 90s issue at random (224, from december 1995) to see if I could find the term and, lo and behold, there was an article titled "[Censored] vs. Role-Playing," by Steve Jackson. I never really got the sense that this was a term that people reacted to with hostility until much later.
What Jackson described in this article was a campaign he played as a youth that was kind of simplistic: "Wed wander through a forest until we had a random encounter (which, as I remember, was always a group of bandits). We would sneak up on them from upwind. Then our wizard would cast cloudkill. After that, wed loot the bodies and Forrest would roll a lot of dice as he totaled up our take. Then we did it again. And again, and again, and again. That must have been one truly bandit-free wilderness by the time we were done. I do remember asking if there was any chance our prey would fight back. Forrest assured me that there were combat rules, but that they were awfully complicated. No character development. No role-playing of any kind, in fact. Not a hint of angst. But what do you expect? This was the mid-70s. If we ever played a second game, I dont remember it. But it was fun, in a perverse sort of way, and it did leave me with a vague idea of what D&D was about. Slay the foe, loot the bodies. Cool. I could deal with that."
Then he described a different kind of campaign that he played later, that was also sort of simplistic: "It was during Roberts campaign that I had the single most exciting bit of character development that Id ever experienced. My fighter, Ragnar the Impetuous, came out of the dungeon with some gold. Enough to buy chain mail! Now that was exciting. No longer was Ragnar taking his life in his hands every time he faced an orc. Now there was a good chance that hed live through a fair fight. In the years since then, Ive had characters win fortunes, develop super-powers, and conquer empires. But theres never been a vicarious thrill like that of Ragnar getting his chain mail. Ragnar made it to fourth level before he died, foolishly trying to rescue a friend (one of the disgusting dwarves Howard Thompson loved to play) from the mind-controlling clutches of an ogre mage. The dwarf, obedient to his evil master, skewered Ragnar with a crossbow bolt. Robert just shook his head. You should have known you couldnt rescue him without magic. True. I knew that. Even Ragnar knew that. But he didnt care. He was going to die trying. He did, too."
Both seem like they were fun. Neither really seems perjorative. I'm not saying to use the term since it obviously enrages people, and it isn't cool to do things that you know will enrage people.
paulstrait wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Diffan wrote:
This is exactly what my understanding of the term was and my old subscriptions to polyhedron and dragon probably shaped that. In some groups I have played in, it is more about describing actions taken and little flair---few hard moral decisions while looting a dungeon and little in character discussion. That is an extreme but we all had fun and the apt descriptor some see as perjorative
Doesn't bother me even as it is apparently descriptive of me.
Lastly, looking on the net I found many instances of people using "the term" as intended with people having adult discussions following. I think that is a better model certainly of tolerance. This thread has felt like a struggle to ban mark twain from the library as a vocal minority claim his books are profane while others scratch their heads.
But these are the times we live in---protestors believe their point of view trumps the press conference and drown the speakers out.
That is all just an observation as "labels" don't come up at tables I play at except for maybe goblinoid or some
such and I don't have any strong feelings about "the
word." Avoiding it on here doesn't take much from me at all, so if it freaks people out no need to jerk people's chains.
However, it sure seems a shame that we have to be that sensitive and worried about offending with the use of
words in contexts such as the above.
paulstrait wrote:
If we take it as a given that the term "rollplay" is derogative, then it is incumbent upon us to find a non-derogative term to express the concept.
Language evolves and terms fall in and out of favour, but the underlying concept being described don't disappear just because a term does.
So what's our new term? I suggest "Structurist".
People, do you really thought about the term itself? I mean, I don’t usually keeps talking about “offensive” terms, but neither I use an inaccurate term. Now, let’s see what the term means and it’s contest:
We are playing an RPG: A Role-Playing Game. People who play an RPG are called Role-Players. Some of these people divides themselves in two: people who are called Role-Players, and people who are called Roll-Players, which means people who just “roll” and don’t role-play. In a Role-Playing Game. Does that mean nothing? Some people may not find offensive, other people are used to the usage, but the term itself clearly is an exclusionary term.
DemoMonkey wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Words have as much power as we assign to them.
Of course, sometimes we want to empower certain words. The phrase, 'I love you' is a good example.
Personally, it takes a small fetid lemming weilding a cheese grater to offend my sense of self. However, I understand other people may take offence to different things.
If I choose to respect someone, I'll avoid using certain terms if I see it upsets them - I do not wish to harm anyone. However, I believe we've all experienced words being used as weapons - and such weapons only have power if we empower them by choosing to react.
Now, the term 'rollplayer', what if it was/is used to describe my actions/play style? I will..... most likely do nothing. It's just a phrase. The user of the term cannot quantify an aspect of my 'self' anymore than I can bite my own teeth. If I choose to react, at best, they might get an, 'ok'. Of course, if I believed they were intentionally trying to upset me then I'd ask them why they wished to do so. And if they expressly stated they wished to harm me? Good luck with that - they better have a lemming and a cheese grater..
An example I gave to some students, who were from Algeria, was framed within the context of, 'Yo momma' jokes. For the students, any reference to their mothers would result in instant confrontation. How dare the speaker attack their mother? This is a matter of honour! Respect must be given.
Then they were asked what their reaction would be if a child has made the same remark. Their response? ''Oh its only a child. It doesn't know any better. It doesn't even know my mother!'
So, content people, context - we're smart and savvy enough to know when someone is using language to harm and when they are not. If someone is looking for a fight then sure, let us defend ourselves or, even better, resolve the situation amicably.
And if we're not sure if someone if someone is trying to harm us with language? We can always ask them to state their intent - rather than going into full knee-jerk defense/offence mode, which only serves to shut down all intelligent recourse and turn potentially constructive dialogue into senseless warmongering.
And if they don't wish to state their intent?
We ignore them. Their intent has become clear through their refusal to assist in building a constructuve diablogue.
..and I'm not wasting my time empowering idiots.
deleted last two posts....they did not add to the coversation that has developed that (no ill intent intended) hold no relevance to my gaming or fun.
Proceed as you wish but perhaps a thread about language having negative power in gaming would help you attract other like minded folks to your coversation?
And I would promise not to jump in...
kalil wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
If you use words that are universally considered derogatory, with derogatory intent, you are an [insert descriptive term of choice]
If you use words that are universally considered derogatory, without derogatory intent, you are ignorant and should be politely corrected
If you use words that are considered derogatory by some but not by a consensus, with derogatory intent, you are an [insert descriptive term of choice]
If you use words that are considered derogatory by some but not by a consensus, without derogatory intent, you are guilty of nothing more than freedom of expression
And if you consciously avoid using any words that anyone might conceivably find offensive, you have just taken a vow of silence.
DemoMonkey wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
kalil wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
kalil wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
kalil wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
kalil wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
kalil wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
kalil wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
There is no cultural consensus that the word is derogatory. The fact that some people are genuinely offended by a word does not, in and of itself, make the word implicitly derogatory.
I don't think roll-players are in any way an inferior subset of role-players, but I do think it's often a different approach and having a term to enable communication about the subject is useful and productive.
Or would be, anywhere else but here.
MechaPilot wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
"The issue with that is that context can often be difficult to tell on the internet. This medium prevents us from reading intent through facial expressions, gestures, pace of speech, and tone of voice. A text-only format is probably the worst format for determining intent."
That's a different kettle of fish. Human society managed to effectively communicate nuance and intent in text for a very very long time before the advent of the internet. It's not undoable.
DemoMonkey wrote:
People, for me, we don’t need to go any further than the word itself:
We are playing an RPG: a Role-Playing Game. People who play an RPG are called role-players. Some of these like to separate role-players in 2: the role-players, which cares more about story and social interaction and such; and the roll-players, who are interested mainly in the rules.
Now, question: if the term “roll-player” was not created in a derogative manner, why exactly the other players are called properly – by the official name – while these players are not called role-players – the appropriate term – but are called roll-players – which is a lot like the official term, but very different because it only refers to rolls? I mean, in this division, some people are called real players while others other are called “silly players”. That is what people are saying when they say about role-players vs. roll-players.
DemoMonkey wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
cassi_brazuca wrote:
If anyone is still reading this who does not want to just argue semantics, what do you do to bring the in-character action and the mechanical action together at the table?
I expanded the Inspiration system. After my players earn inspiration, I will give out additional dice that can be used for damage and healing. The first is a d12 and each progressive die is smaller because I have a set of dice for each player, including the Inspiration point, that I put in front of the players as a reminder of what they have earned. If one of them is spent, it goes back in the pool of earnable dice and I'll give out the biggest one available each time. The idea is to get players to spend the points instead of trying to hoard them. The extra dice can be spent once per damaging ability or healing ability, and if the ability is multi-target, the player specifies which target the die affects. The conditions I have set for earning these dice are the same conditions that warrant inspiration, and I also give out the extra dice for clever combat tactics. I also made a few custom magic items that function by using these dice and/or action points to fuel their usage. So far the result has been that some of the players are more prone to staying in-character instead of discussing anything out of character so that anything witty they come up with can be rewarded.
TenaciousJ wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Reius wrote:
cassi_brazuca wrote:
TenaciousJ wrote:
I have removed content from this thread because inappropriate language is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Comment button below the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
I stayed out of it but could not resist checking back. The way something is used DOES matter. For example, I say my youngest acts or looks like a monkey. To do the same to some individuals may have far different connotations. Same word.
Is it neutral or negative? Can I use it ever? Was it originally meant as a negative? Just food for thought.
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Auticus wrote:
Reius wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Henceforth players whose interests focus on mechanics shall be roll-players
Players whose interests focus on dramatics shall be role-players
Pleyers whose interests are divided in more or less even measure shall be roleplayers.
All three of these categories shall be equal in all eyes in gaming goodliness, with no more moral judgement than the preference for strawberry over chocolate, or chocolate over avocado.
Heed the hyphen, for it shall set you free (of this argument anyways).
So it shall be Posted. So it shall be Done.
Satyrn wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
arderkrag wrote:
Rollplay = a playstyle where you want to roll the dice as much as possible. Roleplay (as it is being used to describe playstyle) = desiring to play the game as an actor/social pillar as much as possible.
'Yes, what I'm saying is that these two aren't separate at all. There is no division between the play styles, except an artificial one born of superiority complexes."
Exactly! It's just like the way people feel compelled to divide fruit into apples and oranges and bananas, just because they are different things with different qualities. They only do that out of a sense of superiority.
Does anyone really hate anyone else because of the way they make believe? (And I think there are multiple styles of make believe). Just cannot fathom people hurting each other over such a trivial thing.
For reals...is there a group of people being damaged by really creepy groups of players? My sample (playing 30 plus years) is limited, but the only hurt feelings I have seen was when several characters ganged up and killed another pc.
arderkrag wrote:
warpiglet wrote: