|
|
|
Prodigal
 
Group: System Moderators
Last Login: Today @ 8:37 PM
Posts: 517,
Visits: 3,484
|
|
On a thread in the LT forums, Flannel made the remark "Game Mechanics do not promote good roleplay, good roleplay does." in the context of the RoP.
I think that it is possible to provide game mechanics which promote good roleplay, although possibly not as much as general high roleplaying standards promote good roleplay. However, I can't think of many actually successful examples:
1) The Maelstrom 'one second rule' promotes good fighting roleplay, which is my best example.
2) The LT marking of rituals for roleplay and the FR handing out XP for roleplay ought to promote good roleplay. However, PD doesn't mark rituals/supplications for roleplay and still gets excellently roleplayed rituals/supplications even though a bunch of people standing around chanting "We want a bunch of eidolons to come and kick Foo Group because they broke your guideline Bar!" would be just as likely to get a response as a well-roleplayed supplication with lots of worship and relevant props and stuff by the same people.
3) Rules which mention that you need to spend n minutes 'roleplay' (or even better, 'quality roleplay') to gain an effect are often the worst offenders, reducing the players to standing around faffing vaguely and muttering 'quality roleplay' under their breath.
Ideas / opinions / what you've seen work / what you've seen spectacularly fail?
Maelstrom: Jessily the Wemic, previously Tourmaline of Weaver
CUTT: Ref 07/08, previously Kallestra Lorelai Aostare of the Sapphire Tower
EOS: Study the Venin
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 7:56 PM
Posts: 1,910,
Visits: 7,932
|
|
I think that it is possible to provide game mechanics which promote good roleplay, although possibly not as much as general high roleplaying standards promote good roleplay.
"Promote" is a little vague - equally, smuggling "good" into the title could be considered to beg the question (you might define "good game mechanics" as game mechanics which promote good roleplay).
1) The Maelstrom 'one second rule' promotes good fighting roleplay, which is my best example.
As a fan of the 'one second rule', I don't think it does promote 'good fighting roleplay' (again, a bit vague and subjective). What I think it does is stipulate that hitting (and calling damage) faster than once every second is against the rules (e.g. if someone gets carried away and machineguns at me we don't have to drop OOC and have an argument about whether it's valid to make four damage calls a second 'cause he saw it once in a martial arts film).
Don't get me wrong, I think it's a really good idea, even if it can render some complex sequenced moves illegal (if the opponent is shit), but I don't see it as something that promotes "good fighting" merely as something that stipulates 'one call a second per person (bar negate)'. Certainly, it discourages machinegunning, which I think is good, but I don't think it goes beyond that to encourage skillful swordplay. It can do the opposite - one blow per second means that, if someone lands a blow on you, you have a second to attack them without fear of being struck in retaliation (where you'd normally be able to keep someone on the defensive with the threat of getting whacked if they run in recklessly).
2) The LT marking of rituals for roleplay and the FR handing out XP for roleplay ought to promote good roleplay.
That's not how you encourage "roleplay", that's how you encourage "entertainment" (I haven't seen or heard anything from a neutral observer about FR, but that's what I've seen/heard about LT rituals, even from people who enjoy them).
Point being, you can define/mreasure what (some people) find entertaining. I've never been convinced that anyone can (or should) measure 'roleplay'.
However, PD doesn't mark rituals/supplications for roleplay and still gets excellently roleplayed rituals/supplications
People got to events to roleplay. Any attempt by one person/one group of people to define and mark that roleplay is likely to be inferior to simply supporting people in doing what they think roleplay is.
Perhaps we should give artists marks to get them to produce more of the right sort of art?
3) Rules which mention that you need to spend n minutes 'roleplay' (or even better, 'quality roleplay') to gain an effect are often the worst offenders, reducing the players to standing around faffing vaguely and muttering 'quality roleplay' under their breath.
How is that distinct from rituals/supplications?
I can only think of armour fixing rules (rituals/supplications feel like they should last at least five minutes, sometimes hard to intently wave your hands around a suit of armour for five minutes).
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 9:29 AM
Posts: 1,132,
Visits: 975
|
|
| I've just realised that of course this is entirely based on what someone thinks good roleplay is. I've come across games which I had been told were full of excellent roleplay which were little better than a MMPORG as far as i wzas concerned. Personally I think the onee second rule falls down with ambidex characters as its entirely possible for them to make two strikes simultaneously without breaking my ideal world of 'filmesque' (for want of a better word) combat. That might be because I don't understand the rules though....
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 7:56 PM
Posts: 1,910,
Visits: 7,932
|
|
Personally I think the onee second rule falls down with ambidex characters as its entirely possible for them to make two strikes simultaneously without breaking my ideal world of 'filmesque' (for want of a better word) combat.
Again, I think filmesque is equally subjective (which film are we talking about?).
I rather liked Kill Bill 2, nonetheless I'm not sure eyesnatching is a good thing to allow at fest events.
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Heroic Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 6:46 PM
Posts: 224,
Visits: 581
|
|
| Y'see, if I was reffing something and people stood about muttering "quality roleplay" under their breath to gain an effect, I'd rule that nothing happens and that they should stop taking the piss. If you are meant to roleplay fixing armour, or opening a lock or whatever, make an effort to at least roleplay it a bit, the best example I can think of is one guy roleplaying fixing chainmail with a teaspoon cos he didn't have anyhting else on him, but still made the effort to actually look like he was doing something. If people stood about just saying "look at us, roleplaying with quality" when they were meant to be doing a ritual, would you be happy? I know rules like having to RP out fixing armour are a drag, but what really are the alternatives? No armour-fixing on linears? insta-fix skills? Personally, I dont' think it is the rules that encourage good roleplay, it's the players and the refs. If a ref will let you get away with standing about muttering "quality roleplay" as a genuine way to get armour fixed, then who the hell is going to bother actually roleplaying? Apart from, of course, the people who enjoy the RP. If the refs said "hang on, cut that out, you get no effect from that bullshit waste of time crap excuse for fixing armour, do it properly" then more people would roleplay it and the rule would actually encourage good roleplay of armour fixing. So really, it's not so much a rules problem as an enforcement problem. If your refs are happy to let people get away with not roleplaying or with sloppy, lazy RP, then no rules are going to make them roleplay.
Debating with Marios: Whoever wins, we lose.
PD: Whisper / Lady Gaelle
LT: Sir Henri
DUTT: Snaz and sparkle!
|
|
|
|
|
Prodigal
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 8:40 AM
Posts: 741,
Visits: 977
|
|
| *applauds* Well said Helly. I agree entirely. Muttering 'quality roleplaying' under the breath is just taking the piss. At Blood Red Roses at the weekend, one guy sat in a tent and tinged a pair of pliers against a cooking pot for an hour to indicate that he was repairing armour whilst drinking his beer. If he can do that, why cant other people?
_____________________________________________________ It is not a competition. It is a web forum.
|
|
|
|
|
Squire
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Thursday, May 31, 2007 5:27 PM
Posts: 30,
Visits: 154
|
|
| i think the rules don't only promote good roleplay, but somtimes make ppl suffer "in behaf of good roleplay". forcing a player to fix an armour in-play is one of these rules. it's like making someone act sharpening a blade or bringing water from the well. it may be fun to watch, emersive even, but no fun to play or roleplay. this is a roleplaying game, not theatre, you come to do fun stuff and enjoy your time, not act stupidly. this is not like roleplaying a fight, or a ceremony. this is to do something because you have to do it and no other reason. it does not promote good roleplay, it only promotes sloppyness and lazyness. they come out naturally when you make somene do something he does not want to do. morover- i believe good roleplay comes when the player does not have to trouble himself with mechanics, hp counts and battlecalls, RP obligations etc. it comes when the player is playing freely as his charracter, not when he has rules making him roleplay.
_________ deleted.
|
|
|
|
|
and Minimeister
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Sunday, April 06, 2008 8:31 AM
Posts: 960,
Visits: 1,402
|
|
Sagy (7/23/2006)
<snip>morover- i believe good roleplay comes when the player does not have to trouble himself with mechanics, hp counts and battlecalls, RP obligations etc. it comes when the player is playing freely as his charracter, not when he has rules making him roleplay. I'm not entirely sure what you're saying, it could be either: i) Get rid of rules. Which I disagree with because then the matter of dispute arbitration appears. ii) Rules mechanics should be intuitive and simple, which I agree with. The less you have to think about rules the better the game because you can get on with your ruleplaying and not have to question whether your actions are "legal".
There is only overconfidence and terror.
|
|
|
|
| | |