So, I have two questions:
- What game that you've played has fostered the most player interaction/roleplaying?
- What was it about that game?
For the longest time, I have always thought that the amount of roleplaying put into a game was up to the GM and the players. Now I'm wondering if certain games encourage it more than others. If they do, what can be taken from them? I'm not talking about diceless or LARPing.
So, I have two questions:
- What game that you've played has fostered the most player interaction/roleplaying?
- What was it about that game?
You know this is going to turn into a flame storm, right?
You know this is going to turn into a flame storm, right?
Sadly.
But to the OP, roleplaying is dependent on the DM making a world that people want to RP in, and the players wanting to RP.
It has nothing to do with systems and everything to do with players, as you had originally said.:D
In general, I believe that a game typically ends up more RP focused when its rules are simpler. This is purely in virtue of the fact that the mind can only process so much at a time, and if it is bogged down in complicated rules, there will be less focus, at that moment in time, on consistent and engaging roleplaying.
This is why 4e, with its intuitive and streamlined ruleset, encouraged roleplaying more than the more complicated and less intuitive 3e.
Further, this hypothesis can be exemplified at both extremes. The purest roleplaying--which to my mind would be classic child's play such as Cops & Robbers, Cowboys & Indians, etc.--have no formal rules.
On the other hand, games with extremely complex, robust rule systems--some video games, deeper strategy games, trading card games--have no roleplaying whatsoever.
Now of course, your mileage may vary. Someone could easily play 4e from a purely tactical perspective, and someone could play Risk with a tricorne and a funny accent. My theory is purely about the tendencies inherent in the games themselves.
For my group, the best setting that encourages roleplaying has been Star Wars. It's fairly obvious why its the best - Everyone has seen the movies, understands the themes and the general tone of the setting. Roleplaying flows out of the shared knowledge and shared expectations far more easily than playing a game in Eberon, FR or any homebrew.
The same can be said for a rule system. If everyone at the table is familiar with the rules (and their limitations) then Roleplaying will simply happen. Complexity matters not, only familiarity and willingness matter in the end.
Personally, Roleplaying comes from having a shared understanding of the world in which the game is played. If everyone is interested and invested in the setting, roleplaying just flows. However if the majority (or a sizable minority) of people at the table are unfamiliar with (or worse) dislike the world, then roleplaying tends to be stymied.
For my group, the best setting that encourages roleplaying has been Star Wars. It's fairly obvious why its the best - Everyone has seen the movies, understands the themes and the general tone of the setting. Roleplaying flows out of the shared knowledge and shared expectations far more easily than playing a game in Eberon, FR or any homebrew.
The same can be said for a rule system. If everyone at the table is familiar with the rules (and their limitations) then Roleplaying will simply happen. Complexity matters not, only familiarity and willingness matter in the end.
Which is why I'm working at compiling a Final Fantasy homebrew.
So people can relate.* Because GURPS' character creation is so wide open (I even made a swordmage just to see if I could) my wife and I require our players to fill out character background sheets before we'll even approve the player's participation
* The system is really simple on the player side: if you're rolling anything but damage then you're trying to roll as low as possible on 3d6
* I encourage rp-intensive combat (the players simply describe their actions and I assign an appropriate modifier; the players don't even need to know anything about combat mechanics)
That last one is something I also try to encourage in my HackMaster and D&D games but it has proven to be far less successful in those games since the games themselves seem designed to encourage munchkinism (which is not necessarily a bad thing).
As a GM I've seen more roleplaying from my GURPS games than any other. I'm really not sure why but I've got some ideas:
* Because GURPS' character creation is so wide open (I even made a swordmage just to see if I could) my wife and I require our players to fill out character background sheets before we'll even approve the player's participation
* The system is really simple on the player side: if you're rolling anything but damage then you're trying to roll as low as possible on 3d6
* I encourage rp-intensive combat (the players simply describe their actions and I assign an appropriate modifier; the players don't even need to know anything about combat mechanics)
That last one is something I also try to encourage in my HackMaster and D&D games but it has proven to be far less successful in those games since the games themselves seem designed to encourage munchkinism (which is not necessarily a bad thing).
I agree with this, system wise, but it still really depends on the dynamic of the group, ultimately. My regular GURPS group has been going for a long time, something like six or seven years with my participation, and they've been together for another five to ten before I came along. When I first entered, there was a lot of great role playing going on, but in the past year or two, things have broken down to the point of frustration. What was a great online gaming group has become: a GM who often takes upward of five minutes to make replies because he's surfing, who also doesn't plan things HALF as often as he should, and that's if he doesn't decide to arbitrarily take a week off; one player who is extremely hit-and-miss in showing up because of family life; one player who has begun to show us that he does not ever plan to have any character NOT be an angst-fest; a school teacher who often has to grade tests, and therefore can't game, or is too tired to do so; and two players (me and my boyfriend) who are extremely frustrated with the whole ordeal. Now, I totally believe that the group is salvageable, but I think it would take someone manning up and getting in everyone's face about their behavior. (You! Show the hell up or tell us you're out, you're keeping us back! You! STOP BEING MISTER ANGSTY ALL THE DAMN TIME! Write a character who's not just some sourpuss analogue of your own misery! And finally YOU, Mister GM man, would you PLEASE RUN A REAL RPG LIKE YOU USED TO?) Being the new kid, though, I can't do it, they'll just resent me and blame it all on me, more likely than not... and even if that isn't true, I'm still scared that it is. I also have the displeasure of being the one and only chick in the group, which ultimately means they'd probably chalk it up to PMS, or talk about what a whiny ***** woman I was behind my back. (Unfortunately, these guys do have slight attitude problems about women. They're nice enough on the whole to overlook it, but I'm not stupid enough to pretend it isn't true.) Not to mention I have to see them face to face at conventions now and then.
Anyway, the "game" that used to be a lot of great fun seems like mostly five dudes grunting bored acknowledgments, and myself growling at how stupid it is that nobody is willing to speak up about the decreasing quality of the game. Bottom line is, you need a good group. It does not matter what system you're using. GURPS does encourage a lot of interesting and dynamic character concepts, but that does not necessarily entail a great game in the end. My poor character was designed to be a scout, sniper, runner, and partly a healer. All he does now is occasionally bash ghouls with a mace, and sometimes, when something happens, he talks. The poor guy is also saddled with an NPC romantic interest, and there was never any kind of courtship. It is really the saddest, most painful game that I have ever played, and that, coming from a long-time DM, is really saying something.
Which is why I'm working at compiling a Final Fantasy homebrew.
Have you looked into BESM for that purpose?
My current game group has been playing together in some form for about 14 years. I've been a part of it for about 12. The same people have had different levels of roleplay within the same game and the same gaming system.
When it has been a good story, we've done more role play. Highlights included D&D 2e and 3.x, Star Wars d20 and d20 revised, oWoD, and Rifts. Low points have included D&D 2e and 3.x, Star Wars d20 and d20 revised, oWoD, Rifts, and Amber Diceless. That doesn't even include the "meh" quality games for D&D 2e and 3.x, Star Wars d6, d20 and d20 revised, oWoD, Scion, and Rifts. (Yeah, I did just say I haven't had good or mediocre roleplay in an Amber Diceless game. There have only been bad experiences.)
Unfortunately, I can't speak to D&D 4e or Star Wars SE quite yet. We were playing other things when 4e came out. And we just started a SWSE game, but we're still working on back ground roleplay, so I don't have an opinion yet.
However saying that Call of Cthulhu encourages roleplaying more than most games because if you end up in combat you normally end up dead. It's not so much the system as the setting.
Archangel James, MnM Toad, Kitsunegami, and DMaple, those were insightful responses, the ones I was looking for. Thank you.
Yes, I know that the level/amount of roleplaying is due (in part) to the players and the GM at the table. -I already said that. I'm looking for specific games that encourage roleplaying as opposed to allowing it. Star Wars was a good example, as it is easy for everyone to get involved due to its familiarity. I was looking at Vampire: the Requiem... that has a lot of info on character motivations and clan relationships, so that is something that helps with roleplaying.
Anthing else out there that anyone can think of?
Thanks again.
I've tried playing Shadowrun, but all my group wanted to do was make characters. They were a bit afraid of actually playing, though I can't remember why, exactly.
I've played a bit more AD&D 2e than I ran, but never with a great DM so the RP always fell short; I wouldn't say it was the system's fault. With 3.x I've run a lot, played a lot, but if you don't get the group into good roleplaying habits early on, they're pretty much doomed to act below their potential. Again, I don't really think it was the system's fault, because some of my best gaming memories were 3.x; I think it's more to do with the mindset that particular edition attracted.
I haven't played it yet, but I can imagine FATE could encourage more roleplaying as it has relatively simple rules (once you cut through all the stunts) and abstract combat (movement is determine in Zones - in a western bar brawl one zone could be anywhere in the main area, anotehr zone might be behind the bar, and another would be the stairs and landing above).
But it is Aspects, Character Creation and Declarations that can really help.
Aspects are freeform phrases like "Thrill seeking son of a noble", "Mind control victim of the hive mind" and "Mangova the Cyborg haunts my dreams". If you can describe how these come into play in a situation you can pay a Fate Point and get a bonus to your rolls. This encourages players to find ways to bring these into play.
E.g. The PCs have pursued an alien creature down a winding passageway in an old Hantium ore mine, when the GM announces that there is a large chasm in the floor up ahead and that an Athletics test is required to jump it. The Player then describes how a grin spreads across his character's face as he actually speeds up - "Its risks like this that make me feel alive!". The players asks the GM if he can invoke his "Thrill seeking son of a noble" Aspect to get a bonus.
But also, the GM can compel a character's Aspect in return for a Fate Point. For example, when a cyborg strides out from the shadows the GM could say to the player "I am compelling your 'Mangova the Cyborg haunts my dreams' aspect, I think your character would noticeably tense up and freeze for a few moments at the sight of the cyborg - you will effectively be surprised. But here is a Fate Point for playing along". The player can accept the Fate Point to play along with the compel or pay one of his own Fate Points to refuse the compel.
The other thing FATE seems to do, is tie a group's character creation together so that PCs come to the table with a decent background and links between each other already. This is done by having phases - in the first phase you are traing and in the second your character is the star of his own adventure, and you write up a brief account of that adventure (like the blurb on the back of a novel or dvd).
In subsequent phases the other players choose someone's story to co-star in embellishing on the brief summary to explain what role they played in that story.
For example a character could end up with the following phases (each of which suggests two aspects):
Training
A noble's son, kidnapped for ransom but who escaped and exposed a traitor!
Aspects: "I'm not going to just sit here and be your victim", Thrill seeking son of a noble
Starring Role Adventure
Aaron Klandol and the Bivoon Conspiracy
Aspects: "A man has to *do* something to earn my trust", Mangova the Cyborg haunts my dreams
Co-star Adventure 1
Mason Jar, Into the Wormhole
Aspects: "Curiosity gets the better of me", Scout for the Federation against parent's wishes
Co-star Adventure 2
Synn Largan versus The Solar Termites
Aspects: "I don't need to be calm, I need to get us outta here!", Mind control victim of the hive mind
So in a game with 5 players, my character of Aaron "Star Runner" Klandol already has a decent backstory and has ties to two other PCs (Mason Jar & Synn Largan). Mason Jar has links to my character and has a link to Lyra Jullar (one of the other two PCs which I don't have a direct connection to).
Finally, FATE allows a player to spend FATE points to actually change the situation (subject to a skill roll and GM agreement) meaning players can actually become part storyteller as well. For example...
A player, whose character is an expert in alien civilisations, attempts declaration: “These aliens were well known for having secret compartments to hide their most treasured possessions.” The Story Teller allows it, the player succeeds at the roll and ‘creates’ a secret compartment that the Story Teller didn’t plan. The player and the Story Teller discuss where it ought to lead, etc. Player: “There might be a secret control pane somewhere near this wall... ah, here it is! Now, to find out how to open it...” Starblazer Adventures p99.
I haven't played it yet, but I can't think it will do anything but encourage roleplaying.
The good thing is phased character creation and Aspects & Fate Points can be grafted on to any RPG system IMHO - including D&D, e.g. using a Fate Point by itself may provide a +2 bonus, but spending a Fate Point by invoking an Aspect could provide a +5 bonus.
I am currently reading Starblazer Adventures which is an implementation of FATE (like SPirit of the Century, which I haven't read).
That sounds a bit like Wushu in that your character is comprised of attributes which each player makes up for himself. For example, here's Brianna She-Ari, self-proclaimed defender of Silvadeil Forest (in HackMaster I played her as an Elf Ranger):
---------------------
5 Master Archer
3 Mage/Herbalist
4 Forest Survival
Weakness: Humans killed my parents and burned my village.
---------------------
That's the entire character sheet (except that I'd normally include a short paragraph under each attribute). The attribute ranks are target numbers; in Wushu you want to roll your attribute or less on 1d6.
Combat is purely roleplay (the system was originally designed for roleplaying movies like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and The Matrix) and the dice are there merely to tell you how effective you are rather than whether you succeed.
We've only played Wushu two or three times but it was always a blast and always very roleplay intensive (since Wushu can't be run any other way).
But in general, I think the players and DMs have FAR mor to do with the amount of RP going on than the system itself. I have played a lot of RPGs over the years and seen both deeply immersive games of D&D and purely munchkiny games of Vampire, depending on who's playing.
That sounds a bit like Wushu in that your character is comprised of attributes which each player makes up for himself.
Sort of, but in FATE you also have skills that are rated on a numerical ladder like many other games, so as well as aspects you have Fists: Average (+1), Starship Pilot: Great (+4).
Right now, it's 4th Edition and a high-stakes Forgotten Realms game.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/252724-what-system-elements-promote-hinder-roleplaying-inspired-does-d-d-4th-edition-hinder.html
I may be missing a few.What I have found is that the extent of RP is totally independent of system. It's all about the people.
The more dice there are, the more "roll-playing" there is.
True, a great deal is up to the players and DMs, but I find the more dice there are, the less players and DMs can really concentrate on the game rather than the dice rolls.
Obviously you can roleplay in any game, though.
Seriously, it's all about the group and how well they gel together. You can rp in anything. (God knows my group does it enough in Risk sheesh)
Edit: The idea that a system can cause more RP is bunk, of course, but I'd found that people not inclined to roleplay are more likely to be coaxed into it when they don't feel that they're being told 'how to play'.
Have you looked into BESM for that purpose?
Tristat is a horrible system to do anything in. It is by far the most swingiest game out there, due to improper balance and a conscious decision to try to blend High School Romance, Giant Robot Action, and Dragonball Z into one RPG, under the same point build.
I mean, you could do it under BESM, but by far, it is one of your worse system choices. You'd be better off using Hero's System, tweaking 3E, tweaking 4E, or tweaking Burning Wheel then you would using BESM.
... if I was to give an opinion on system, that is. With Final Fantasy moving constantly out of High Fantasy and into Sci Fi realms, it's getting harder to say where it fits in anymore.
... of course, none of this has to do with roleplaying, but I think the first three respondents covered my response nicely.
You can rp in anything. (God knows my group does it enough in Risk sheesh)
This isn't actually an answer to the question. It is a dismissal of the question.
"Which games encourage roleplaying?"
"It doesn't matter, you can roleplay in any game!"
Not so much a helpful response, no matter how many times it is repeated.
In general, I believe that a game typically ends up more RP focused when its rules are simpler.
This is absolutely accurate. I have played approximately 30 different RPGs over the years, and there is definitely an inverse correlation between rules complexity and role-playing.
Put another way, whatever the game-books focus on, that's what the players will usually focus on as well. If the game spends 90% of its page-count describing equipment, combat options, and tactical rules, then that's what the players are likely to focus on. It's for this reason I tend to enjoy rules-light systems more than rules-heavy ones (and D&D4 is still on the heavy side compared to games like Talislanta or BESM, for example.)
Of course, a GM can run a rules-heavy game in such a way that it seems rules-light to the players, but that's not the point of this discussion.
To all the people who keep repeating "Role-playing is up to the players and GM, not the game", re-read the OP. He's asking what games encourage roleplaying. While it's true that a group of devoted role-players could role-play a Chess game, and a hack-and-slasher can ruin a LARP, that's not the question.
No system encourages it greater then another. That's the problem. It is not the system that encourages it, it is how the system is played that does. Which system it is doesn't matter. That's why you are getting that response. The OP is trying to make a book responsible for people, and that isn't the way it works.
Once upon a time... is a Card Game of storytelling. The objective is to tell a story that weaves the elements of the cards in your hand and get them out of your hand till you can play the card that lets you end the story. If you say a word that another player has in their hand, they can steal the story from you, and you have to draw some cards.
Now, there are two ways to play this game. You can either use it as a means to show how good you can be at making a story, or you can play to win, by using as little words, settings, characters, and plot as possible and play really really tightly, which is not any fun for anyone, really.
However, the point of this exposition is that YOU CAN'T MAKE A PERSON TELL A STORY. They have to want to do so. It is completely in the players hands on how much story and immersion they want to have in a game. You can't make a person do it. System doesn't matter, the player does.
Since narratives from the DM and players are the only tweak factors after comparing attributes of the contesting creatures, and these rules are loose, the mixture of freedom to roleplay PLUS the requirement that folks wanting to succeed need to sharpen their roleplaying skills to outwit enemies when they would otherwise be overpowered, makes the entire campaign very roleplay intense.
Add to this the usual environment of allowing player vs player competition, and things really get interesting.
My most memorable playing experiences were Amber DRPG, and one of the campaigns still spoken of highly was a campaign I ran using Amber with houserules to adapt it to the setting of the Dune Universe.
Some might say those settings alone are rich for roleplay opportunities. I think the ruleset is the real enforcer though. If you are able to just roll dice for 'luck' instead of making elaborate plans to take advantage of an enemy's weakness, trap them into making concessions, etc, it seems obvious the reliance on dice can be a deterrent for roleplaying.
Sure, some roleplayers can make do in any system. But some players will be lazy and avoid roleplaying if they can. Some DMs actually penalize roleplaying flair either by making checks more difficult (e.g. why should swinging from a chandelier be more difficult than a mundane jump or tumble to accomplish the same thing? A encouraging GM would give a +1 bonus for flair). The Diceless game demands a higher commitment from everyone, and the campaign chances of becoming memorable are greatly increased because of this.
When my group plays DnD, we spend a lot more time moving miniatures around a board then role-playing (nothing wrong with that). When we play games like Primetime Adventures, Dogs in the Vineyard, or Spirit of the Century; there is a lot more role-playing going on (nothing wrong with that).
Some games have mechanics that push the narrative and guide role-playing. These games promote role-playing because the rules focus on character and plot. The emphasis is on conflict and not combat, with conflict resolution driving the action.
You can role-play any game, but unless the game is supporting the role-playing with actual game mechanics then you're forcing the issue. Having said that, I really enjoy killing monsters and taking their stuff.
I just realized I didn't actual address the OP. I highly recommend Primetime Adventures, it's a short book that is a really fun read. Primetime Adventures' mechanics are a little weak but because it's about television, it's highly accessible (compared to a game like Dogs in the Vineyard, which has great mechanics but is too esoteric).
If you're looking for Action, there might be no better game then Spirit of the Century. It's based on the FATE system which has been reference in the thread already and it's mechanics tie directly into your characters background. SotC is a mechanics-heavy game (rather complicated) that really encourages role-playing, because the mechanics reference directly to your character's traits and background. Again, the role-playing happens because the mechanics support it.
I would say it has a lot to do with how well people know the setting. I know nothing about the Warhammer 40K universe, but I love playing Dark Heresy (it's a cool, girtty, gory, bloody system), but I can't roleplay in it very well, since I don't know about the universe.
Actually that's a pretty good way to RP in that universe.
All you need is a bit of basic info on the Imperium & your set. Why? Because the vast majority of its citizens, even those who make up an inquisitors retinue, get told nothing/virtually nothing about the universe they live in. Most of what you know is gained 1st hand.
No system encourages it greater then another. That's the problem. It is not the system that encourages it, it is how the system is played that does. Which system it is doesn't matter. That's why you are getting that response. The OP is trying to make a book responsible for people, and that isn't the way it works.
Ok, let's try this: I'll present two systems, and you see if you can honestly say they are the same in terms of role-playing.
1) You are a submarine captain. The purpose of the game is to blow up enemy submarines. The rules of the game go into great detail on historical and current events, tactics, submarine movement rules, passive and active sonar rolls, dice mechanics for crew loyalty, various skills the captain can possess and how they advance through the game, etc. Each player plays a captain of an opposing submarine.
2) You are one of the last surviving members of the human race after a supernatural holocaust. Most humans have been twisted into horrific mockeries of humanity. The PCs play the inhabitants of a secluded seacoast village that was somehow spared the worst ravages of The Event, but the new world is gradually closing in. The rules of the game go into great detail on the effects of stress on a normal person's sanity, and how to realistically portray someone who has lost his or her grip in some way, but can still function.
Can you really sit there and tell me that both of these games promote role-playing equally? Admittedly, the first one is a glorified "Battleship" game, but it's still a role-playing game because you've got skills, character advancement, etc.
In short: If the rules focus on role-playing, the game encourages it. If the rules focus on tactics and dice-rolls, the game discourages role-playing.
I'm particularly found of the OVA RPG (Ricochet system) because character abilities (Fireballs, strength, speed) and character story & personality (recurring nightmares, ditziness, on the run) are handled with the same part of the system, so your game can be active whatever focus you choose. It's comparable to the way 4e made the skill challenge system similar to combat: both are now more engaging than ending with 1-2 dice rolls & a sentence. It's also very simple: you only have the +/- traits that matter to your character; everything else is treated as +0.
The best roleplaying campaigns overall are for those games that are diceless.
Since narratives from the DM and players are the only tweak factors after comparing attributes of the contesting creatures, and these rules are loose, the mixture of freedom to roleplay PLUS the requirement that folks wanting to succeed need to sharpen their roleplaying skills to outwit enemies when they would otherwise be overpowered, makes the entire campaign very roleplay intense.
Add to this the usual environment of allowing player vs player competition, and things really get interesting.
My most memorable playing experiences were Amber DRPG, and one of the campaigns still spoken of highly was a campaign I ran using Amber with houserules to adapt it to the setting of the Dune Universe.
Some might say those settings alone are rich for roleplay opportunities. I think the ruleset is the real enforcer though. If you are able to just roll dice for 'luck' instead of making elaborate plans to take advantage of an enemy's weakness, trap them into making concessions, etc, it seems obvious the reliance on dice can be a deterrent for roleplaying.
Sure, some roleplayers can make do in any system. But some players will be lazy and avoid roleplaying if they can. Some DMs actually penalize roleplaying flair either by making checks more difficult (e.g. why should swinging from a chandelier be more difficult than a mundane jump or tumble to accomplish the same thing? A encouraging GM would give a +1 bonus for flair). The Diceless game demands a higher commitment from everyone, and the campaign chances of becoming memorable are greatly increased because of this.
This!
The most immersing and fun I ever had Roleplaying was Amber. It requires so much more input from the players and DM that you end up with a lot of fun. I would also think it would not be everyones cup of tea.
Have you looked into BESM for that purpose?
Yes, and because I want to use the 4th edition D&D rules to convey the worlds of Final Fantasy, that doesn't really help me.
Thanks though.:D
Ok, let's try this: I'll present two systems, and you see if you can honestly say they are the same in terms of role-playing.
1) You are a submarine captain. The purpose of the game is to blow up enemy submarines. The rules of the game go into great detail on historical and current events, tactics, submarine movement rules, passive and active sonar rolls, dice mechanics for crew loyalty, various skills the captain can possess and how they advance through the game, etc. Each player plays a captain of an opposing submarine.
2) You are one of the last surviving members of the human race after a supernatural holocaust. Most humans have been twisted into horrific mockeries of humanity. The PCs play the inhabitants of a secluded seacoast village that was somehow spared the worst ravages of The Event, but the new world is gradually closing in. The rules of the game go into great detail on the effects of stress on a normal person's sanity, and how to realistically portray someone who has lost his or her grip in some way, but can still function.
Can you really sit there and tell me that both of these games promote role-playing equally? Admittedly, the first one is a glorified "Battleship" game, but it's still a role-playing game because you've got skills, character advancement, etc.
In short: If the rules focus on role-playing, the game encourages it. If the rules focus on tactics and dice-rolls, the game discourages role-playing.
Are you trying to say that, when playing Battleship, You don't try and act out a Military guy ordering depth charges being launched?
It depends on players and group encouragement. You can roleplay a dice roll just as well as you can roleplay without a dice roll. And for those that think a restricting system mechanic like dice makes it harder to RP, what about the people who play up a role on MMOG servers?
Whitewolf in its various forms does it well too- I don't much care for the mechanics, but the fluff of the magic, powers, and philosophy is so heavily engrained that you can't really play it without being part of a bigger picture.
I think DnD can be pretty good for roleplaying, but it depends on who you group with. Some people just don't get it.
Cops and Robbers
Cowboys and Indians
Cops and Robbers
Don't you mean, Aces & Eights?
Ok, let's try this: I'll present two systems, and you see if you can honestly say they are the same in terms of role-playing.
1) You are a submarine captain. The purpose of the game is to blow up enemy submarines. The rules of the game go into great detail on historical and current events, tactics, submarine movement rules, passive and active sonar rolls, dice mechanics for crew loyalty, various skills the captain can possess and how they advance through the game, etc. Each player plays a captain of an opposing submarine.
2) You are one of the last surviving members of the human race after a supernatural holocaust. Most humans have been twisted into horrific mockeries of humanity. The PCs play the inhabitants of a secluded seacoast village that was somehow spared the worst ravages of The Event, but the new world is gradually closing in. The rules of the game go into great detail on the effects of stress on a normal person's sanity, and how to realistically portray someone who has lost his or her grip in some way, but can still function.
Can you really sit there and tell me that both of these games promote role-playing equally?
Yes. If you have been paying attention to my other discussion, you will realize that Setting and System are not about Roleplaying. They are, respectively, the background for the theme, and the means of which to interact with each other. In fact, you seem to make the same mistake a lot of people have been making lately, which is that Setting makes you roleplay better, and system makes it harder. Neither is true.
In short: If the rules focus on role-playing, the game encourages it. If the rules focus on tactics and dice-rolls, the game discourages role-playing.
Tactics and Roleplaying are not opposite sides of the coin. Tactics is separate from Roleplaying. I guarantee you that rules that focus on Roleplaying will have Tactics, and people who play tactical games can roleplay. Neither is exclusive.
It would be very constructive for yourself if you actually defined roleplaying.
No system encourages it greater then another. That's the problem. It is not the system that encourages it, it is how the system is played that does. Which system it is doesn't matter. That's why you are getting that response. The OP is trying to make a book responsible for people, and that isn't the way it works.
Well, IMO some games *do* encourage role-playing more than others, but I think they're pretty much all "narrativist" systems (Polaris, DitV, Conspiracy of Shadows, Nine Worlds, Grey Ranks and so on). In some it's due to using clever mechanics that encourage role-playing via metagaming, while in others players have more control over narration if they win conflicts. And yet in Polaris, for example, all characters are doomed from the start and the purpose of the game is to see *how* it happens. EDIT: And another example could be well-run skill challenges in 4E.
The system that uses the least dice encourages the most roleplaying.
The more dice there are, the more "roll-playing" there is.
If that were true, the best roleplaying game ever invented would be Amber Diceless.
Though not definitive, my experiences with Amber have shown me that people can power game and "roll"-play there just as well as any other game. Even lacking dice.
Edit for clarity: All three Amber games I've played (with different gaming groups) all turned out to be ego centric stroke fests. Either for the person running it or the GM's favorite(s). So basically the GM and the GM's favorites had fun, but the rest of the group was marginalized and never had plot hooks.
I keep hearing about these mythical awesome Amber games that people love, but I've yet to see one. I posit that unicorns are more common. Which is too bad, I love to roleplay.
Regardless of system, those who enjoy RPing will RP (because they gain from it - they have fun). Those who do not enjoy it, will not (because they lose from it - they are having less fun). Those who don't care will RP if they have something to gain, and won't if they do not.
The middle group can "gain" in certain ways. For example, peer pressure may change their minds - if the rest of the group are heavy RPers and having a blast, then they may well get into it. Humans are social animals after all. Other than these intangibles (that all boil down to "it depends on the group"), the only influence a game system can have on roleplaying is what they offer this group.
Those who enjoy RP, will. If the system offers a mechanical advantage for RPing, then the middle group will RP - as they have something to gain. Over time, they may well simply enjoy RPing anyways. The last group is actually tied into the middle group - they're simply the most extreme. Offer enough of a mechanical advantage and everyone will RP. For example, even the most ardent hack and slasher, if they get a good bonus from describing their attacks well, will get into the habit of doing so.
So I conclude that the game that encourages the most roleplaying is the one that gives the most mechanical advantage for doing so - as that is the only thing a game system can offer. In fact, many games do this (D&D, Exalted and Savage Worlds, for example.) It is also the game that offers the least amount of penalties for doing so.
(By this I'm referring to something like the 3e skill system. There's all these neat skills that almost never come into play (such as cooking, or sailing in a desert campaign) that your character should possess according to how you designed him. Yet allocating those points is a distinct penalty to the skills more relevant to succeeding in encounters. Given the skill-starved classes, this means a fighter is more likely to have ranks in Jump than ranks in Underwater Basket Weaving. This is a definite disincentive to take these background skills - skills a character should have as a result of their background.)
No system encourages it greater then another.
The reasoning you have presented addresses a premise that nobody is arguing, so you have, in essence, presented no reasoning relevant to this discussion. As such, your wholly unsupported opinion can be dismissed with an equally unsupported statement of opinion.
You are wrong.
Whether or not you can roleplay in any game has absolutely no relevance to the topic of whether or not some games encourage roleplaying. Your stubborn adherence to this foolishness makes me think that discussion of this subject with you is pointless. Please don't respond to this post.
There are games in which the mechanics are nothing more than a way to keep track of the results of roleplayed events. These games pretty much force you to roleplay. If there are games that nearly force you to roleplay, then there are games that encourage roleplaying. Between this thread and the thread linked in this thread, there are a wealth of suggestions.
The reasoning you have presented addresses a premise that nobody is arguing, so you have, in essence, presented no reasoning relevant to this discussion. As such, your wholly unsupported opinion can be dismissed with an equally unsupported statement of opinion.
You asked for my opinion. I gave it to you. I found your examples deeply lacking in understanding what roleplaying means.
EDIT: Oh, no. Correction. You are not the person. In fact, you're whole contribution to this is "You're wrong." to anyone with an objective view that you don't agree to, which is not even a contribution at all, really.
You are wrong.
Hardly, but that's besides the point.
Whether or not you can roleplay in any game has absolutely no relevance to the topic of whether or not some games encourage roleplaying. Your stubborn adherence to this foolishness makes me think that discussion of this subject with you is pointless. Please don't respond to this post.
Which is interesting, because I can't think of a single RPG that doesn't encourage roleplaying. And ignore me if you can't stand me. I'm not going to not post. That's beyond rude.
There are games in which the mechanics are nothing more than a way to keep track of the results of roleplayed events. These games pretty much force you to roleplay. If there are games that nearly force you to roleplay, then there are games that encourage roleplaying. Between this thread and the thread linked in this thread, there are a wealth of suggestions.
Define Roleplaying. Do you even understand what you are discussing?
The reasoning you have presented addresses a premise that nobody is arguing, so you have, in essence, presented no reasoning relevant to this discussion. As such, your wholly unsupported opinion can be dismissed with an equally unsupported statement of opinion.
You are wrong.
Whether or not you can roleplay in any game has absolutely no relevance to the topic of whether or not some games encourage roleplaying. Your stubborn adherence to this foolishness makes me think that discussion of this subject with you is pointless. Please don't respond to this post.
There are games in which the mechanics are nothing more than a way to keep track of the results of roleplayed events. These games pretty much force you to roleplay. If there are games that nearly force you to roleplay, then there are games that encourage roleplaying. Between this thread and the thread linked in this thread, there are a wealth of suggestions.
Any game has a set of rules and a clear way to determine a winner and a loser.
If you have a system of keeping track of a story told by a group of people, that would be a shared novel or a stage play, not a game.
In short: If the rules focus on role-playing, the game encourages it. If the rules focus on tactics and dice-rolls, the game discourages role-playing.
I've noticed a trend towards the opposite in my experiences.
If the rules focus on role-playing, players will take a back seat to their character's stats.
If the rules completely ignore role-playing, the players can't just rely on their stats to do the role-playing for them.
- What game that you've played has fostered the most player interaction/roleplaying?
Charades.
Which is why I'm working at compiling a Final Fantasy homebrew.
Ooh...I've always wanted a good final fantasy tabletop adaption.
Charades.
Thank you. This is both the best and worst reply I've read!
Ooh...I've always wanted a good final fantasy tabletop adaption.
Well, I'm using some of the material of the Final Fantasy Tactics game as a springboard for the enemies. I've looked everywhere I can for info on races. And I plan to use the new Summoning rules from the PHB2 for a Summoner class. I'd like to have a section devoted to the different worlds of FF, and a section with Artifacts and magical items from FF as well.
So wish me luck.
So wish me luck.
Good luck!
And if you feel like sharing, you can be sure I'll steal it for my own games.
Well, I'm using some of the material of the Final Fantasy Tactics game as a springboard for the enemies. I've looked everywhere I can for info on races. And I plan to use the new Summoning rules from the PHB2 for a Summoner class. I'd like to have a section devoted to the different worlds of FF, and a section with Artifacts and magical items from FF as well.
So wish me luck.
Good luck.
If you happen to be running any demos, say at Guardian Games or Bridgetown Hobbies, let me know :D
Atmosphere is far more important. If you can create a game world that compels the players, one that sucks them in and really makes them sit up and think, then you are MUCH more likely to have great role play. Role play can't really happen without immersion and the immersion is going to be poor at best if the game consists of nothing but formulaic dungeon crawl and a town which serves as nothing but a flop house and magic store for the PCs.
D&D traditionally, as an example, has never gone overly far within the core rules to promote really good RP settings. The generic fluff of the various "canon" worlds of different editions has not generally been particularly helpful. The philosophy seems to have always been to present a rather bland vanilla pastiche of modern fantasy tropes on the theory that the game should get out of the way and let the DM supply the real creativity.
The opposite of course exists in a lot of other games which presuppose a particular environment like the modern world or some specific fantasy or sci-fi environment. There you (hopefully) have a strongly imagined world with a powerful core theme built in and ready to go.
I'm not saying genre specific games are better, or that they WILL produce better role playing, but they generally do provide the GM with a game world which is more strongly themed and provides better role playing motivation out of the box. With more generic systems the GM is freer to develop the environment in whatever direction they want, but they will have to exercise a good bit of creativity in order to engage the players sense of wonder, get them to suspend their disbelief, and immerse themselves in the play.
On the flip side you can only play so much Paranoia or Call of Cthulhu before being force fed another experimental drug or having your brain melted by Nyarlathotep for the 5th time gets old. The more wide open and less niche specific games can have a lot greater replay value and CAN produce equally good results, they just require a bit more initial creativity.
And finally lets just face it, a LOT of players and GMs are at best mediocre role players. Some are downright bad. Others are limited to only playing certain types of characters or situations well. Such is life. They're going to need and want different things from a system than others are. They may just enjoy playing at tactics more than acting in character, etc.
The ideal system would combine all of these features and interests in one box. Is that possible? Maybe not, but some systems have come closer than others.
You see, in my experience it's sometimes the case that the Role-play that matters is between one character and an NPC. In which case, if this takes a long time to resolve then it's probably a bad idea to do it in the course of a normal gaming session and leave the other players to sit around while you do so. If it happens too often, then people are going to resent this. But if the mechanisms exist where it's possible to do this between sessions, then it can take place then without stopping the game for everyone else.
In a Pendragon campaign I took part in my character spent five years courting a lady, and most of the things I was doing wouldn't have involved the other players. Fortunately I was able to resolve this between sessions in 1-to-1 discussion with the GM, as were the other players with their private sessions. What made it more enjoyable was that the GM encouraged us to tell the other players what we'd been doing since the last session during the next session, and sometimes made it part of the adventure he ran. Also, another player started a campaign journal writing up our in-session activities, and got the rest of to write in little snippets of what we'd been doing inbetween (and occasional corrections to his view of events). At the end of the campaign he gave all of us a copy of it too. It's still something those of us who took part sometimes talk about, till the newer members of the group shout us down. :D
You don't have to be very creative to roleplay (To pretend to make decisions as someone else). You DO have to be creative to ...
Give colorful descriptions
To create detailed backgrounds
To explain complex motives
To speak with your voice as someone else might
So on, and so on...
If we are talking about Creativity, there are systems that reward those that are. However being Creative, and Roleplaying are two different things, and the confusion that I often see is people assuming that you must be both actor and storyteller to be a roleplaying participant. This is not true.
While I like to encourage Creativity and Imagination in my games, I do not make that a requirement for play. I accept that people might have limits to their creativity, and as long as they enjoy themselves and don't be disruptive, I let them play. However, these people will not be able to pick up the rewards that other players do in games that encourage more creativity. Some players will always reap a reward and others will be punished. I discovered this really during the Questions Phase under the old White Wolf System.
So while I accept that there are games that might encourage more Creativness (See Houses of the Blooded), I do not see any system that actually encourages greater roleplaying. That is really just impossible.
I do believe that AbdulAlhazred is correct in stating that the setting was a big reason those gaming communities exist. It's a lot easier to get a group of roleplayers if the biggest reason people play in that system is they want to roleplay in that system. That comes from either marketing, setting or dumb luck.
Good luck.
If you happen to be running any demos, say at Guardian Games or Bridgetown Hobbies, let me know :D
I'm not sure where those are. :D
I'm not sure where those are. :D
Guardian Games is in lower southeast near Burnside and Grand.
Bridgetown Hobbies is on Sandy BLVD.
I was really just giving a shout out because we're fellow Portlanders.
Are you trying to say that, when playing Battleship, You don't try and act out a Military guy ordering depth charges being launched?
Nope, and I've never heard of anyone doing so either. However, even if you did insert a little role-playing into a Battleship game, that has nothing to do with the topic we're discussing... whether the game ENCOURAGES role-playing.
It depends on players and group encouragement.
Again, you're missing the point. Yes, good players and group encouragement can encourage role-playing, but that's not what the OP asked.
And for those that think a restricting system mechanic like dice makes it harder to RP, what about the people who play up a role on MMOG servers?
I can role-play a Chess match. If you really try, you could role-play competitive tax-return form filing. That doesn't mean those things encourage role-playing.
Yes. If you have been paying attention to my other discussion, you will realize that Setting and System are not about Roleplaying.
In your opinion.
Please don't take the attitude that I'm some young gamer who needs to learn the ways of the world at your knee. I started RPG gaming in 1978, and my opinion is at least as valid as your own.
My opinion is that players tend to focus their gaming attention on whatever the game rules focus. If the game is designed to be little more than a series of fights with the loosest of stories to explain everything, it's not going to encourage much role-playing. Conversely, if the game is all *about* the roles the players take, with almost no attention paid to tactics and combat, then role-playing is absolutely encouraged (even required.)
you seem to make the same mistake a lot of people have been making lately, which is that Setting makes you roleplay better, and system makes it harder.
I make no "mistake". I hold an opinion different from your own, that's all.
By the way, we're not debating what system makes you role-play better or which makes it harder. The discussion, in case I haven't been clear so far in this post, is what types of games ENCOURAGE role-playing.
Let's take an even more extreme example than the one I used earlier, to illustrate the point. Let's say we have an RPG that is so rules-heavy that you have to stop and roll a skill-check for every little action... trying to run? Roll Athletics to see if you trip. Trying to talk a merchant into giving you a better deal? Roll Diplomacy. Want to draw your sword? Roll your Swordsmanship skill to see if you get it out without cutting yourself. Trying to walk and chew bubble-gum? Make a Dex check. ... All opportunities for role-play are governed by dice rolls and charts in the book, cross-referencing the NPC's attributes and skills against the PC's skills and dice rolls.
Do you argue that such an RPG encourages role-playing as much as, say, Amber where all actions, even combat, are determined by the players' role-playing ability?
Tactics and Roleplaying are not opposite sides of the coin.
I never said they were. I said that if the rulebook focuses on tactics and combat and the mechanics thereof, players are then encouraged to focus on that as well.
Tactics is separate from Roleplaying. I guarantee you that rules that focus on Roleplaying will have Tactics, and people who play tactical games can roleplay. Neither is exclusive.
Once again, you're arguing some other discussion. We're not saying that a game that focuses on combat will never have role-playing, or visa versa. We're talking about the kinds of games that *encourage* one or the other.
It would be very constructive for yourself if you actually defined roleplaying.
Not necessary. I think we both understand the terms under discussion. You simply misunderstood what was being discussed.
Here is one example (there are more), for clarification one type of arthra is fate (earned by beliefs) and Burning Wheel uses d6 dice pools.
"When a player brings to life a new character in Burning Wheel, he furnishes that character with three Beliefs. In essence these are the top 3 priorities for the character in play... ...Stating a Belief for a peasant, "I'm the true king of this land." does not make it factual in game. But by getting that out in the open, you are letting the other players know you want situations revolving around that theme... ...Players manipulate their character's belief in order to earn artha... ...A player may spend a fate point to make the dice of a single roll open-ended (6s rerolled as new dice)
One example of a game with mechanics that encourage RP is the Burning Wheel
Here is one example (there are more), for clarification one type of arthra is fate (earned by beliefs) and Burning Wheel uses d6 dice pools.
"When a player brings to life a new character in Burning Wheel, he furnishes that character with three Beliefs. In essence these are the top 3 priorities for the character in play... ...Stating a Belief for a peasant, "I'm the true king of this land." does not make it factual in game. But by getting that out in the open, you are letting the other players know you want situations revolving around that theme... ...Players manipulate their character's belief in order to earn artha... ...A player may spend a fate point to make the dice of a single roll open-ended (6s rerolled as new dice)
I'm unclear on how that encourages role playing any more than developing a background for your character does so in 4e. Granted that 4e has a more free-form way of dealing with backgrounds. As of PHB 2 the background rules fairly precisely define the sorts of advantages you can get via background (one extra skill added to your list to pick from, a +2 bonus to using a specific skill, etc). The way I read it the DM is encouraged to flesh this out more as well, and could easily provide other types of benefits, etc.
In any case you can do this sort of thing in any game system.
There is perhaps some validity to the concept that whatever aspects of play a game system expends a lot of effort on will likely factor heavily in play. Still, I don't see that as either encouraging or discouraging role playing. I don't think a bunch of players that like to play a combat centric game where they spend a lot of energy on their tactics are going to play a lot differently just because they happen to be playing a game where RP is built into the mechanics. They'll use that feature tactically! Likewise I have never experienced a game where players wouldn't or didn't role play just as much or effectively just because the game didn't make that part of the mechanics or they didn't put a lot of emphasis on it in the rules text.
Now, it may be that role players tend to prefer certain game systems and tacticians prefer other ones. I'd say that is the result of the players preferences, and that isn't really going to be changed by the system.
In any case you can do this sort of thing in any game system.
Yes, this is true. I was just listing one example from a game that has a mechanic to encouraging RP. The mechanic is when you do an act against the current king that puts you closer to claiming the crown you get a reward that you can then spend to improve your chances on a roll. Burning Wheel has many of these type of things build into the mechanics, theres nothing stoping a GM from doing any of this in any system.
Also take into consideration that Burning Wheel came out in 2002 where as your PHB 2 just came out. Most good game designers are going to read a lot of indie press stuff and find ideas they can alter to fit in their own games.
New World of Darkness is another great example where willpower is a reusable resource, by following the virtue and vice you have chosen for your character you gain willpower back.
New World of Darkness is another great example where willpower is a reusable resource, by following the virtue and vice you have chosen for your character you gain willpower back.
That pairing of Virtue and Vice is, of course, a more structured version of how Demeanor and Nature used to work in the old WoD. ("Martyr: Regain Willpower when you sacrifice yourself in a real and immediate way for your beliefs or another individual", for example, or "Deviant: Regain Willpower whenever you successfully thumb your nose at society and its precepts without retaliation.") One particular detail which the reworked system adds is the temptation of hurting others for a "quick fix" of Willpower, at the risk of slowly degenerating into a human monster as those actions may lower the character's Morality.
But really, personality mechanics which offer incentives for consistent portrayals of the PCs are by no means a recent development. Just look at Pendragon and its Passions, or indeed the thirteen pairs of virtues and vices which it already featured long before The World of Darkness.
The best roleplaying campaigns overall are for those games that are diceless.
Since narratives from the DM and players are the only tweak factors after comparing attributes of the contesting creatures, and these rules are loose, the mixture of freedom to roleplay PLUS the requirement that folks wanting to succeed need to sharpen their roleplaying skills to outwit enemies when they would otherwise be overpowered, makes the entire campaign very roleplay intense.
You know, when the OP specified that he "wasn't talking about diceless", I assumed that he meant something along the lines of freeform forum roleplay. Aside from Amber, the more recent diceless RPGs (Nobilis, Marvel Universe, Active Exploits) aren't mechanically all that different from their diced counterparts, except naturally enough for the lack of the random element, and even then they typically manage to replace that with, say, resource management. Strictly comparing fixed attributes is far from the only choice when it comes to non-random resolution: as I like to put it, Nob pretty much runs on a regular roll-over system... which just happens to leave out the dice.
Do you argue that such an RPG encourages role-playing as much as, say, Amber where all actions, even combat, are determined by the players' role-playing ability?
Absolutely.
Because the game defines itself as a roleplaying game, it therefore encourages roleplaying.
Hence the label ROLEPLAYING GAME.
Because the game defines itself as a roleplaying game, it therefore encourages roleplaying.
Hence the label ROLEPLAYING GAME.
You believe that anything that calls itself a role-playing game encourages role-playing equally? I suspect that you and I have different definitions of what "role-playing" means, if that is true. I suspect, however, that you're simply being disingenuous for the purposes of extending the debate into semantic silliness.
You believe that anything that calls itself a role-playing game encourages role-playing equally? I suspect that you and I have different definitions of what "role-playing" means, if that is true. I suspect, however, that you're simply being disingenuous for the purposes of extending the debate into semantic silliness.
Yes...I do believe that.
The publishers of Dungeons & Dragons refer to it as a ROLEPLAYING GAME.
The publishers of Shadowrun refer to it as a ROLEPLAYING GAME.
The publishers of Vampire: The Masquerade refer to it as a ROLEPLAYING GAME.
The publishers of Amber Diceless Roleplaying refer to it as a ROLEPLAYING GAME.
I don't know why you're still arguing about this, frankly you're just making yourself look silly at this point.
How does my chess example above (take chess and call it a role-playing game) encourage actual role-playing? Slapping a label on something does not change its nature.
I'm not talking about diceless or LARPing.
I am wondering why you exclude Diceless RPGs. I can understand excluding LARPing since this is referring to tabletop RPGs, but Diceless games are tabletop RPGs with systems for actions, and everything you expect from your typical tabletop RPG.....except the randomness.
Has the OP played a Diceless RPG? Was the decision to exclude Diceless RPGs from the conversation because of a fear that games like Amber and Nobilis would be too obvious an answer?
I've been playing Amber for over 10 years and have also created my own diceless systems. One of the things that I find really annoying is how many gamers discount the diceless games as "not roleplaying games" when they have never played any of them. What leads people to think they are so different than other RPGs?
Was there a point in any of that? All you did was list a bunch of RPGs. How does that support your side of the discussion?
Emphasis: mine.
Thank you. Glad to see we are in agreement.
The topic heading, however, uses the term "roleplaying", which causes confusion because sometimes people use it to mean only the player interaction/characterisation portion of roleplaying, rather than all roleplaying.
So the answer to the question "which game encourages the most roleplaying?" is, as pointed out by TheHATED on page 1 (and repeated by several others such as Dirk_Radhammer), simply ... Roleplaying Games.
No matter whether it is D&D, Rolemaster, Amber, Storyteller, Dogs in the Vineyard, GURPS, or Burning Wheel (etc), what you are doing is roleplaying -- whether its rolling dice, portraying your character, looking up tables, angsting over your nature vs demeanor, moving miniatures about a grid, or deciding which strategy to use next, all of it is part of the activity called "roleplaying". When you go roleplaying on Friday night, you (may) do all of these things ... not (necessarily) only characterisation.
(Even Tipop showed this dual-meaning of the term when, to paraphrase what he said "How is a bunch of roleplaying [full meaning] games a list of games that encourage roleplaying? [partial meaning]".)
So, semantics out of the way, you are asking about player interaction and characterisation.
So, I have two questions:
- What game that you've played has fostered the most player interaction?
- What was it about that game?
Pure player interaction would probably be convention games written specifically with hooks for the characters to interact.
e.g. A convention game I wrote (first in 1994 in D&D 2nd Ed, and then re-written/re-run in 2004 in D&D 3rd Ed) where the characters were all nobles or relations and where the empress had just died, leaving behind a young daughter. Three of the characters (her husband, uncle and nephew) all had claims to the throne and every character was created to have at least one or more reasons/hooks to interact with every other character.
Following on that theme, a more general answer is that any of the characters, setting or system can encourage character interaction.
* In any system the players can spend time designing detailed hooks between characters (e.g. as part of character creation).
* Setting can also be a factor, e.g. an example was given of Star Wars, or another well known setting, where players have something to follow (Star Wars may also encourage high-action).
In general low-combat settings can also allow more time for characterisation (because combat often takes up a lot of time), e.g. an example given was Cthulhu, where combat is often a no-win, so this allows more time for characterisation (Cthulhu may also encourage investigation and puzzle/mystery solving).
One series of games that I saw a lot of characterisation in was the RPGA Living Jungle campaign (D&D 2nd edition, and migrated to early 3.0) -- it was a low-tech (no armor) jungle setting with big dinosaurs, so it was usually good to avoid combat. For example one scenario involved a quest to find the ingredients for a cooking competition.
* Finally, System. Many indie games (Dogs in the Vineyard, Burning Wheel, etc) follow the philosophy that "system matters", which I happen to agree with.
Whilst character design, setting, or simply player preference can lead to characterisation, so can the choice of system affect characterisation.
A system that rewards combat encourages combat, a system that rewards skill use encourages skill use, etc.
A player may be equally interested in combat, skills and characterisation, but, because it is a game, they may choose to prefer the one that the system gives rewards for.
D&D (e.g. 4E) is generally designed to reward combat, or other means of 'defeating' enemies; to a lesser degree it also rewards completing quests, and skill use, where characterisation may provide bonuses for some social skills.
In contrast, examples have been given of systems such as World of Darkness where you get direct rewards (Willpower) for portraying your Virtue/Vice.
Another system, Pendragon, also encourages characterisation through mechanics; in Pendragon characters have personality traits like Valorous 16 / Cowardly 4, or passions like Hate Saxons 13, that you roll against. In other games when you roll a combat skill you might describe how your character slash at them with it's sword, and if you critical you might describe how you pierce them through the eye; similarly in Pendragon when critically failing a Generous roll you might describe how instead of giving the beggar some coins you instead dash the bowl from his hands and instead berate him for being lazy and not working.
Pendragon also rewards character interaction, whereas you might get 25 Glory for defeating an Ogre, you will get 35 Glory for becoming an Officer to a Duke, or maybe 200 Glory for getting married, or 350 Glory for becoming an Earl, etc.
Burning Wheel is another system the gives direct rewards (Artha) for portaying your character's beliefs, and provides time for characterisation by wrapping unimportant combat conflicts into a single dice test.
It also has a complex Duel of Wits mechanic with scripted tactics that can be used to resolve social situations (encourging detailed portrayal of these actions).
Burning Wheel also has quite a complex scripted tactical combat system, but you only use it for combats that a critical to the plot (in fact one guideline of Burning Wheel is only ever to use dice mechanics for critical activities).
So, whilst the group of players is important, and players that want to interact can do so using any system, for the average player where all other things are equal, systems that encourage interaction (either reward it or have mechanics for it) are going to see more characterisation.
System and players *BOTH* matter.
Have you looked into BESM for that purpose?
Yes, and because I want to use the 4th edition D&D rules to convey the worlds of Final Fantasy, that doesn't really help me.
Thanks though.:D
Ok, let's try this: I'll present two systems, and you see if you can honestly say they are the same in terms of role-playing.
1) You are a submarine captain. The purpose of the game is to blow up enemy submarines. The rules of the game go into great detail on historical and current events, tactics, submarine movement rules, passive and active sonar rolls, dice mechanics for crew loyalty, various skills the captain can possess and how they advance through the game, etc. Each player plays a captain of an opposing submarine.
2) You are one of the last surviving members of the human race after a supernatural holocaust. Most humans have been twisted into horrific mockeries of humanity. The PCs play the inhabitants of a secluded seacoast village that was somehow spared the worst ravages of The Event, but the new world is gradually closing in. The rules of the game go into great detail on the effects of stress on a normal person's sanity, and how to realistically portray someone who has lost his or her grip in some way, but can still function.
Can you really sit there and tell me that both of these games promote role-playing equally? Admittedly, the first one is a glorified "Battleship" game, but it's still a role-playing game because you've got skills, character advancement, etc.
In short: If the rules focus on role-playing, the game encourages it. If the rules focus on tactics and dice-rolls, the game discourages role-playing.
Are you trying to say that, when playing Battleship, You don't try and act out a Military guy ordering depth charges being launched?
It depends on players and group encouragement. You can roleplay a dice roll just as well as you can roleplay without a dice roll. And for those that think a restricting system mechanic like dice makes it harder to RP, what about the people who play up a role on MMOG servers?
Whitewolf in its various forms does it well too- I don't much care for the mechanics, but the fluff of the magic, powers, and philosophy is so heavily engrained that you can't really play it without being part of a bigger picture.
I think DnD can be pretty good for roleplaying, but it depends on who you group with. Some people just don't get it.
Cops and Robbers
Cowboys and Indians
Cops and Robbers
Don't you mean, Aces & Eights?
Ok, let's try this: I'll present two systems, and you see if you can honestly say they are the same in terms of role-playing.
1) You are a submarine captain. The purpose of the game is to blow up enemy submarines. The rules of the game go into great detail on historical and current events, tactics, submarine movement rules, passive and active sonar rolls, dice mechanics for crew loyalty, various skills the captain can possess and how they advance through the game, etc. Each player plays a captain of an opposing submarine.
2) You are one of the last surviving members of the human race after a supernatural holocaust. Most humans have been twisted into horrific mockeries of humanity. The PCs play the inhabitants of a secluded seacoast village that was somehow spared the worst ravages of The Event, but the new world is gradually closing in. The rules of the game go into great detail on the effects of stress on a normal person's sanity, and how to realistically portray someone who has lost his or her grip in some way, but can still function.
Can you really sit there and tell me that both of these games promote role-playing equally?
Yes. If you have been paying attention to my other discussion, you will realize that Setting and System are not about Roleplaying. They are, respectively, the background for the theme, and the means of which to interact with each other. In fact, you seem to make the same mistake a lot of people have been making lately, which is that Setting makes you roleplay better, and system makes it harder. Neither is true.
In short: If the rules focus on role-playing, the game encourages it. If the rules focus on tactics and dice-rolls, the game discourages role-playing.
Tactics and Roleplaying are not opposite sides of the coin. Tactics is separate from Roleplaying. I guarantee you that rules that focus on Roleplaying will have Tactics, and people who play tactical games can roleplay. Neither is exclusive.
It would be very constructive for yourself if you actually defined roleplaying.
No system encourages it greater then another. That's the problem. It is not the system that encourages it, it is how the system is played that does. Which system it is doesn't matter. That's why you are getting that response. The OP is trying to make a book responsible for people, and that isn't the way it works.
Well, IMO some games *do* encourage role-playing more than others, but I think they're pretty much all "narrativist" systems (Polaris, DitV, Conspiracy of Shadows, Nine Worlds, Grey Ranks and so on). In some it's due to using clever mechanics that encourage role-playing via metagaming, while in others players have more control over narration if they win conflicts. And yet in Polaris, for example, all characters are doomed from the start and the purpose of the game is to see *how* it happens. EDIT: And another example could be well-run skill challenges in 4E.
The system that uses the least dice encourages the most roleplaying.
The more dice there are, the more "roll-playing" there is.
If that were true, the best roleplaying game ever invented would be Amber Diceless.
Though not definitive, my experiences with Amber have shown me that people can power game and "roll"-play there just as well as any other game. Even lacking dice.
Edit for clarity: All three Amber games I've played (with different gaming groups) all turned out to be ego centric stroke fests. Either for the person running it or the GM's favorite(s). So basically the GM and the GM's favorites had fun, but the rest of the group was marginalized and never had plot hooks.
I keep hearing about these mythical awesome Amber games that people love, but I've yet to see one. I posit that unicorns are more common. Which is too bad, I love to roleplay.
Regardless of system, those who enjoy RPing will RP (because they gain from it - they have fun). Those who do not enjoy it, will not (because they lose from it - they are having less fun). Those who don't care will RP if they have something to gain, and won't if they do not.
The middle group can "gain" in certain ways. For example, peer pressure may change their minds - if the rest of the group are heavy RPers and having a blast, then they may well get into it. Humans are social animals after all. Other than these intangibles (that all boil down to "it depends on the group"), the only influence a game system can have on roleplaying is what they offer this group.
Those who enjoy RP, will. If the system offers a mechanical advantage for RPing, then the middle group will RP - as they have something to gain. Over time, they may well simply enjoy RPing anyways. The last group is actually tied into the middle group - they're simply the most extreme. Offer enough of a mechanical advantage and everyone will RP. For example, even the most ardent hack and slasher, if they get a good bonus from describing their attacks well, will get into the habit of doing so.
So I conclude that the game that encourages the most roleplaying is the one that gives the most mechanical advantage for doing so - as that is the only thing a game system can offer. In fact, many games do this (D&D, Exalted and Savage Worlds, for example.) It is also the game that offers the least amount of penalties for doing so.
(By this I'm referring to something like the 3e skill system. There's all these neat skills that almost never come into play (such as cooking, or sailing in a desert campaign) that your character should possess according to how you designed him. Yet allocating those points is a distinct penalty to the skills more relevant to succeeding in encounters. Given the skill-starved classes, this means a fighter is more likely to have ranks in Jump than ranks in Underwater Basket Weaving. This is a definite disincentive to take these background skills - skills a character should have as a result of their background.)
No system encourages it greater then another.
The reasoning you have presented addresses a premise that nobody is arguing, so you have, in essence, presented no reasoning relevant to this discussion. As such, your wholly unsupported opinion can be dismissed with an equally unsupported statement of opinion.
You are wrong.
Whether or not you can roleplay in any game has absolutely no relevance to the topic of whether or not some games encourage roleplaying. Your stubborn adherence to this foolishness makes me think that discussion of this subject with you is pointless. Please don't respond to this post.
There are games in which the mechanics are nothing more than a way to keep track of the results of roleplayed events. These games pretty much force you to roleplay. If there are games that nearly force you to roleplay, then there are games that encourage roleplaying. Between this thread and the thread linked in this thread, there are a wealth of suggestions.
The reasoning you have presented addresses a premise that nobody is arguing, so you have, in essence, presented no reasoning relevant to this discussion. As such, your wholly unsupported opinion can be dismissed with an equally unsupported statement of opinion.
You asked for my opinion. I gave it to you. I found your examples deeply lacking in understanding what roleplaying means.
EDIT: Oh, no. Correction. You are not the person. In fact, you're whole contribution to this is "You're wrong." to anyone with an objective view that you don't agree to, which is not even a contribution at all, really.
You are wrong.
Hardly, but that's besides the point.
Whether or not you can roleplay in any game has absolutely no relevance to the topic of whether or not some games encourage roleplaying. Your stubborn adherence to this foolishness makes me think that discussion of this subject with you is pointless. Please don't respond to this post.
Which is interesting, because I can't think of a single RPG that doesn't encourage roleplaying. And ignore me if you can't stand me. I'm not going to not post. That's beyond rude.
There are games in which the mechanics are nothing more than a way to keep track of the results of roleplayed events. These games pretty much force you to roleplay. If there are games that nearly force you to roleplay, then there are games that encourage roleplaying. Between this thread and the thread linked in this thread, there are a wealth of suggestions.
Define Roleplaying. Do you even understand what you are discussing?
The reasoning you have presented addresses a premise that nobody is arguing, so you have, in essence, presented no reasoning relevant to this discussion. As such, your wholly unsupported opinion can be dismissed with an equally unsupported statement of opinion.
You are wrong.
Whether or not you can roleplay in any game has absolutely no relevance to the topic of whether or not some games encourage roleplaying. Your stubborn adherence to this foolishness makes me think that discussion of this subject with you is pointless. Please don't respond to this post.
There are games in which the mechanics are nothing more than a way to keep track of the results of roleplayed events. These games pretty much force you to roleplay. If there are games that nearly force you to roleplay, then there are games that encourage roleplaying. Between this thread and the thread linked in this thread, there are a wealth of suggestions.
Any game has a set of rules and a clear way to determine a winner and a loser.
If you have a system of keeping track of a story told by a group of people, that would be a shared novel or a stage play, not a game.
In short: If the rules focus on role-playing, the game encourages it. If the rules focus on tactics and dice-rolls, the game discourages role-playing.
I've noticed a trend towards the opposite in my experiences.
If the rules focus on role-playing, players will take a back seat to their character's stats.
If the rules completely ignore role-playing, the players can't just rely on their stats to do the role-playing for them.
- What game that you've played has fostered the most player interaction/roleplaying?
Charades.
Which is why I'm working at compiling a Final Fantasy homebrew.
Ooh...I've always wanted a good final fantasy tabletop adaption.
Charades.
Thank you. This is both the best and worst reply I've read!
Ooh...I've always wanted a good final fantasy tabletop adaption.
Well, I'm using some of the material of the Final Fantasy Tactics game as a springboard for the enemies. I've looked everywhere I can for info on races. And I plan to use the new Summoning rules from the PHB2 for a Summoner class. I'd like to have a section devoted to the different worlds of FF, and a section with Artifacts and magical items from FF as well.
So wish me luck.
So wish me luck.
Good luck!
And if you feel like sharing, you can be sure I'll steal it for my own games.
Well, I'm using some of the material of the Final Fantasy Tactics game as a springboard for the enemies. I've looked everywhere I can for info on races. And I plan to use the new Summoning rules from the PHB2 for a Summoner class. I'd like to have a section devoted to the different worlds of FF, and a section with Artifacts and magical items from FF as well.
So wish me luck.
Good luck.
If you happen to be running any demos, say at Guardian Games or Bridgetown Hobbies, let me know :D
Atmosphere is far more important. If you can create a game world that compels the players, one that sucks them in and really makes them sit up and think, then you are MUCH more likely to have great role play. Role play can't really happen without immersion and the immersion is going to be poor at best if the game consists of nothing but formulaic dungeon crawl and a town which serves as nothing but a flop house and magic store for the PCs.
D&D traditionally, as an example, has never gone overly far within the core rules to promote really good RP settings. The generic fluff of the various "canon" worlds of different editions has not generally been particularly helpful. The philosophy seems to have always been to present a rather bland vanilla pastiche of modern fantasy tropes on the theory that the game should get out of the way and let the DM supply the real creativity.
The opposite of course exists in a lot of other games which presuppose a particular environment like the modern world or some specific fantasy or sci-fi environment. There you (hopefully) have a strongly imagined world with a powerful core theme built in and ready to go.
I'm not saying genre specific games are better, or that they WILL produce better role playing, but they generally do provide the GM with a game world which is more strongly themed and provides better role playing motivation out of the box. With more generic systems the GM is freer to develop the environment in whatever direction they want, but they will have to exercise a good bit of creativity in order to engage the players sense of wonder, get them to suspend their disbelief, and immerse themselves in the play.
On the flip side you can only play so much Paranoia or Call of Cthulhu before being force fed another experimental drug or having your brain melted by Nyarlathotep for the 5th time gets old. The more wide open and less niche specific games can have a lot greater replay value and CAN produce equally good results, they just require a bit more initial creativity.
And finally lets just face it, a LOT of players and GMs are at best mediocre role players. Some are downright bad. Others are limited to only playing certain types of characters or situations well. Such is life. They're going to need and want different things from a system than others are. They may just enjoy playing at tactics more than acting in character, etc.
The ideal system would combine all of these features and interests in one box. Is that possible? Maybe not, but some systems have come closer than others.
You see, in my experience it's sometimes the case that the Role-play that matters is between one character and an NPC. In which case, if this takes a long time to resolve then it's probably a bad idea to do it in the course of a normal gaming session and leave the other players to sit around while you do so. If it happens too often, then people are going to resent this. But if the mechanisms exist where it's possible to do this between sessions, then it can take place then without stopping the game for everyone else.
In a Pendragon campaign I took part in my character spent five years courting a lady, and most of the things I was doing wouldn't have involved the other players. Fortunately I was able to resolve this between sessions in 1-to-1 discussion with the GM, as were the other players with their private sessions. What made it more enjoyable was that the GM encouraged us to tell the other players what we'd been doing since the last session during the next session, and sometimes made it part of the adventure he ran. Also, another player started a campaign journal writing up our in-session activities, and got the rest of to write in little snippets of what we'd been doing inbetween (and occasional corrections to his view of events). At the end of the campaign he gave all of us a copy of it too. It's still something those of us who took part sometimes talk about, till the newer members of the group shout us down. :D
You don't have to be very creative to roleplay (To pretend to make decisions as someone else). You DO have to be creative to ...
Give colorful descriptions
To create detailed backgrounds
To explain complex motives
To speak with your voice as someone else might
So on, and so on...
If we are talking about Creativity, there are systems that reward those that are. However being Creative, and Roleplaying are two different things, and the confusion that I often see is people assuming that you must be both actor and storyteller to be a roleplaying participant. This is not true.
While I like to encourage Creativity and Imagination in my games, I do not make that a requirement for play. I accept that people might have limits to their creativity, and as long as they enjoy themselves and don't be disruptive, I let them play. However, these people will not be able to pick up the rewards that other players do in games that encourage more creativity. Some players will always reap a reward and others will be punished. I discovered this really during the Questions Phase under the old White Wolf System.
So while I accept that there are games that might encourage more Creativness (See Houses of the Blooded), I do not see any system that actually encourages greater roleplaying. That is really just impossible.
I do believe that AbdulAlhazred is correct in stating that the setting was a big reason those gaming communities exist. It's a lot easier to get a group of roleplayers if the biggest reason people play in that system is they want to roleplay in that system. That comes from either marketing, setting or dumb luck.
Good luck.
If you happen to be running any demos, say at Guardian Games or Bridgetown Hobbies, let me know :D
I'm not sure where those are. :D
I'm not sure where those are. :D
Guardian Games is in lower southeast near Burnside and Grand.
Bridgetown Hobbies is on Sandy BLVD.
I was really just giving a shout out because we're fellow Portlanders.
Are you trying to say that, when playing Battleship, You don't try and act out a Military guy ordering depth charges being launched?
Nope, and I've never heard of anyone doing so either. However, even if you did insert a little role-playing into a Battleship game, that has nothing to do with the topic we're discussing... whether the game ENCOURAGES role-playing.
It depends on players and group encouragement.
Again, you're missing the point. Yes, good players and group encouragement can encourage role-playing, but that's not what the OP asked.
And for those that think a restricting system mechanic like dice makes it harder to RP, what about the people who play up a role on MMOG servers?
I can role-play a Chess match. If you really try, you could role-play competitive tax-return form filing. That doesn't mean those things encourage role-playing.
Yes. If you have been paying attention to my other discussion, you will realize that Setting and System are not about Roleplaying.
In your opinion.
Please don't take the attitude that I'm some young gamer who needs to learn the ways of the world at your knee. I started RPG gaming in 1978, and my opinion is at least as valid as your own.
My opinion is that players tend to focus their gaming attention on whatever the game rules focus. If the game is designed to be little more than a series of fights with the loosest of stories to explain everything, it's not going to encourage much role-playing. Conversely, if the game is all *about* the roles the players take, with almost no attention paid to tactics and combat, then role-playing is absolutely encouraged (even required.)
you seem to make the same mistake a lot of people have been making lately, which is that Setting makes you roleplay better, and system makes it harder.
I make no "mistake". I hold an opinion different from your own, that's all.
By the way, we're not debating what system makes you role-play better or which makes it harder. The discussion, in case I haven't been clear so far in this post, is what types of games ENCOURAGE role-playing.
Let's take an even more extreme example than the one I used earlier, to illustrate the point. Let's say we have an RPG that is so rules-heavy that you have to stop and roll a skill-check for every little action... trying to run? Roll Athletics to see if you trip. Trying to talk a merchant into giving you a better deal? Roll Diplomacy. Want to draw your sword? Roll your Swordsmanship skill to see if you get it out without cutting yourself. Trying to walk and chew bubble-gum? Make a Dex check. ... All opportunities for role-play are governed by dice rolls and charts in the book, cross-referencing the NPC's attributes and skills against the PC's skills and dice rolls.
Do you argue that such an RPG encourages role-playing as much as, say, Amber where all actions, even combat, are determined by the players' role-playing ability?
Tactics and Roleplaying are not opposite sides of the coin.
I never said they were. I said that if the rulebook focuses on tactics and combat and the mechanics thereof, players are then encouraged to focus on that as well.
Tactics is separate from Roleplaying. I guarantee you that rules that focus on Roleplaying will have Tactics, and people who play tactical games can roleplay. Neither is exclusive.
Once again, you're arguing some other discussion. We're not saying that a game that focuses on combat will never have role-playing, or visa versa. We're talking about the kinds of games that *encourage* one or the other.
It would be very constructive for yourself if you actually defined roleplaying.
Not necessary. I think we both understand the terms under discussion. You simply misunderstood what was being discussed.
Here is one example (there are more), for clarification one type of arthra is fate (earned by beliefs) and Burning Wheel uses d6 dice pools.
"When a player brings to life a new character in Burning Wheel, he furnishes that character with three Beliefs. In essence these are the top 3 priorities for the character in play... ...Stating a Belief for a peasant, "I'm the true king of this land." does not make it factual in game. But by getting that out in the open, you are letting the other players know you want situations revolving around that theme... ...Players manipulate their character's belief in order to earn artha... ...A player may spend a fate point to make the dice of a single roll open-ended (6s rerolled as new dice)
One example of a game with mechanics that encourage RP is the Burning Wheel
Here is one example (there are more), for clarification one type of arthra is fate (earned by beliefs) and Burning Wheel uses d6 dice pools.
"When a player brings to life a new character in Burning Wheel, he furnishes that character with three Beliefs. In essence these are the top 3 priorities for the character in play... ...Stating a Belief for a peasant, "I'm the true king of this land." does not make it factual in game. But by getting that out in the open, you are letting the other players know you want situations revolving around that theme... ...Players manipulate their character's belief in order to earn artha... ...A player may spend a fate point to make the dice of a single roll open-ended (6s rerolled as new dice)
I'm unclear on how that encourages role playing any more than developing a background for your character does so in 4e. Granted that 4e has a more free-form way of dealing with backgrounds. As of PHB 2 the background rules fairly precisely define the sorts of advantages you can get via background (one extra skill added to your list to pick from, a +2 bonus to using a specific skill, etc). The way I read it the DM is encouraged to flesh this out more as well, and could easily provide other types of benefits, etc.
In any case you can do this sort of thing in any game system.
There is perhaps some validity to the concept that whatever aspects of play a game system expends a lot of effort on will likely factor heavily in play. Still, I don't see that as either encouraging or discouraging role playing. I don't think a bunch of players that like to play a combat centric game where they spend a lot of energy on their tactics are going to play a lot differently just because they happen to be playing a game where RP is built into the mechanics. They'll use that feature tactically! Likewise I have never experienced a game where players wouldn't or didn't role play just as much or effectively just because the game didn't make that part of the mechanics or they didn't put a lot of emphasis on it in the rules text.
Now, it may be that role players tend to prefer certain game systems and tacticians prefer other ones. I'd say that is the result of the players preferences, and that isn't really going to be changed by the system.
In any case you can do this sort of thing in any game system.
Yes, this is true. I was just listing one example from a game that has a mechanic to encouraging RP. The mechanic is when you do an act against the current king that puts you closer to claiming the crown you get a reward that you can then spend to improve your chances on a roll. Burning Wheel has many of these type of things build into the mechanics, theres nothing stoping a GM from doing any of this in any system.
Also take into consideration that Burning Wheel came out in 2002 where as your PHB 2 just came out. Most good game designers are going to read a lot of indie press stuff and find ideas they can alter to fit in their own games.
New World of Darkness is another great example where willpower is a reusable resource, by following the virtue and vice you have chosen for your character you gain willpower back.
New World of Darkness is another great example where willpower is a reusable resource, by following the virtue and vice you have chosen for your character you gain willpower back.
That pairing of Virtue and Vice is, of course, a more structured version of how Demeanor and Nature used to work in the old WoD. ("Martyr: Regain Willpower when you sacrifice yourself in a real and immediate way for your beliefs or another individual", for example, or "Deviant: Regain Willpower whenever you successfully thumb your nose at society and its precepts without retaliation.") One particular detail which the reworked system adds is the temptation of hurting others for a "quick fix" of Willpower, at the risk of slowly degenerating into a human monster as those actions may lower the character's Morality.
But really, personality mechanics which offer incentives for consistent portrayals of the PCs are by no means a recent development. Just look at Pendragon and its Passions, or indeed the thirteen pairs of virtues and vices which it already featured long before The World of Darkness.
The best roleplaying campaigns overall are for those games that are diceless.
Since narratives from the DM and players are the only tweak factors after comparing attributes of the contesting creatures, and these rules are loose, the mixture of freedom to roleplay PLUS the requirement that folks wanting to succeed need to sharpen their roleplaying skills to outwit enemies when they would otherwise be overpowered, makes the entire campaign very roleplay intense.
You know, when the OP specified that he "wasn't talking about diceless", I assumed that he meant something along the lines of freeform forum roleplay. Aside from Amber, the more recent diceless RPGs (Nobilis, Marvel Universe, Active Exploits) aren't mechanically all that different from their diced counterparts, except naturally enough for the lack of the random element, and even then they typically manage to replace that with, say, resource management. Strictly comparing fixed attributes is far from the only choice when it comes to non-random resolution: as I like to put it, Nob pretty much runs on a regular roll-over system... which just happens to leave out the dice.
Do you argue that such an RPG encourages role-playing as much as, say, Amber where all actions, even combat, are determined by the players' role-playing ability?
Absolutely.
Because the game defines itself as a roleplaying game, it therefore encourages roleplaying.
Hence the label ROLEPLAYING GAME.
Because the game defines itself as a roleplaying game, it therefore encourages roleplaying.
Hence the label ROLEPLAYING GAME.
You believe that anything that calls itself a role-playing game encourages role-playing equally? I suspect that you and I have different definitions of what "role-playing" means, if that is true. I suspect, however, that you're simply being disingenuous for the purposes of extending the debate into semantic silliness.
You believe that anything that calls itself a role-playing game encourages role-playing equally? I suspect that you and I have different definitions of what "role-playing" means, if that is true. I suspect, however, that you're simply being disingenuous for the purposes of extending the debate into semantic silliness.
Yes...I do believe that.
The publishers of Dungeons & Dragons refer to it as a ROLEPLAYING GAME.
The publishers of Shadowrun refer to it as a ROLEPLAYING GAME.
The publishers of Vampire: The Masquerade refer to it as a ROLEPLAYING GAME.
The publishers of Amber Diceless Roleplaying refer to it as a ROLEPLAYING GAME.
I don't know why you're still arguing about this, frankly you're just making yourself look silly at this point.
How does my chess example above (take chess and call it a role-playing game) encourage actual role-playing? Slapping a label on something does not change its nature.
I'm not talking about diceless or LARPing.
I am wondering why you exclude Diceless RPGs. I can understand excluding LARPing since this is referring to tabletop RPGs, but Diceless games are tabletop RPGs with systems for actions, and everything you expect from your typical tabletop RPG.....except the randomness.
Has the OP played a Diceless RPG? Was the decision to exclude Diceless RPGs from the conversation because of a fear that games like Amber and Nobilis would be too obvious an answer?
I've been playing Amber for over 10 years and have also created my own diceless systems. One of the things that I find really annoying is how many gamers discount the diceless games as "not roleplaying games" when they have never played any of them. What leads people to think they are so different than other RPGs?
Was there a point in any of that? All you did was list a bunch of RPGs. How does that support your side of the discussion?
Emphasis: mine.
Thank you. Glad to see we are in agreement.
The topic heading, however, uses the term "roleplaying", which causes confusion because sometimes people use it to mean only the player interaction/characterisation portion of roleplaying, rather than all roleplaying.
So the answer to the question "which game encourages the most roleplaying?" is, as pointed out by TheHATED on page 1 (and repeated by several others such as Dirk_Radhammer), simply ... Roleplaying Games.
No matter whether it is D&D, Rolemaster, Amber, Storyteller, Dogs in the Vineyard, GURPS, or Burning Wheel (etc), what you are doing is roleplaying -- whether its rolling dice, portraying your character, looking up tables, angsting over your nature vs demeanor, moving miniatures about a grid, or deciding which strategy to use next, all of it is part of the activity called "roleplaying". When you go roleplaying on Friday night, you (may) do all of these things ... not (necessarily) only characterisation.
(Even Tipop showed this dual-meaning of the term when, to paraphrase what he said "How is a bunch of roleplaying [full meaning] games a list of games that encourage roleplaying? [partial meaning]".)
So, semantics out of the way, you are asking about player interaction and characterisation.
So, I have two questions:
- What game that you've played has fostered the most player interaction?
- What was it about that game?
Pure player interaction would probably be convention games written specifically with hooks for the characters to interact.
e.g. A convention game I wrote (first in 1994 in D&D 2nd Ed, and then re-written/re-run in 2004 in D&D 3rd Ed) where the characters were all nobles or relations and where the empress had just died, leaving behind a young daughter. Three of the characters (her husband, uncle and nephew) all had claims to the throne and every character was created to have at least one or more reasons/hooks to interact with every other character.
Following on that theme, a more general answer is that any of the characters, setting or system can encourage character interaction.
* In any system the players can spend time designing detailed hooks between characters (e.g. as part of character creation).
* Setting can also be a factor, e.g. an example was given of Star Wars, or another well known setting, where players have something to follow (Star Wars may also encourage high-action).
In general low-combat settings can also allow more time for characterisation (because combat often takes up a lot of time), e.g. an example given was Cthulhu, where combat is often a no-win, so this allows more time for characterisation (Cthulhu may also encourage investigation and puzzle/mystery solving).
One series of games that I saw a lot of characterisation in was the RPGA Living Jungle campaign (D&D 2nd edition, and migrated to early 3.0) -- it was a low-tech (no armor) jungle setting with big dinosaurs, so it was usually good to avoid combat. For example one scenario involved a quest to find the ingredients for a cooking competition.
* Finally, System. Many indie games (Dogs in the Vineyard, Burning Wheel, etc) follow the philosophy that "system matters", which I happen to agree with.
Whilst character design, setting, or simply player preference can lead to characterisation, so can the choice of system affect characterisation.
A system that rewards combat encourages combat, a system that rewards skill use encourages skill use, etc.
A player may be equally interested in combat, skills and characterisation, but, because it is a game, they may choose to prefer the one that the system gives rewards for.
D&D (e.g. 4E) is generally designed to reward combat, or other means of 'defeating' enemies; to a lesser degree it also rewards completing quests, and skill use, where characterisation may provide bonuses for some social skills.
In contrast, examples have been given of systems such as World of Darkness where you get direct rewards (Willpower) for portraying your Virtue/Vice.
Another system, Pendragon, also encourages characterisation through mechanics; in Pendragon characters have personality traits like Valorous 16 / Cowardly 4, or passions like Hate Saxons 13, that you roll against. In other games when you roll a combat skill you might describe how your character slash at them with it's sword, and if you critical you might describe how you pierce them through the eye; similarly in Pendragon when critically failing a Generous roll you might describe how instead of giving the beggar some coins you instead dash the bowl from his hands and instead berate him for being lazy and not working.
Pendragon also rewards character interaction, whereas you might get 25 Glory for defeating an Ogre, you will get 35 Glory for becoming an Officer to a Duke, or maybe 200 Glory for getting married, or 350 Glory for becoming an Earl, etc.
Burning Wheel is another system the gives direct rewards (Artha) for portaying your character's beliefs, and provides time for characterisation by wrapping unimportant combat conflicts into a single dice test.
It also has a complex Duel of Wits mechanic with scripted tactics that can be used to resolve social situations (encourging detailed portrayal of these actions).
Burning Wheel also has quite a complex scripted tactical combat system, but you only use it for combats that a critical to the plot (in fact one guideline of Burning Wheel is only ever to use dice mechanics for critical activities).
So, whilst the group of players is important, and players that want to interact can do so using any system, for the average player where all other things are equal, systems that encourage interaction (either reward it or have mechanics for it) are going to see more characterisation.
System and players *BOTH* matter.