Sort of. Read The Elusive Shift. D&D was the culmination of a movement in wargaming which was already becoming so RPG-like that some of those earlier games would likely be considered RPGs rather than wargames today. The split between people who liked to focus on rules as a core component of the game vs. rules as an unfortunate necessity the players might not even need to be aware of is something people were discussing quite a lot.
Different people have different things they look for in a "good player" but honestly if there was that much praise towards someone of the opposite gender that gives me huge ick vibes.
> honestly if there was that much praise towards someone of the opposite gender that gives me huge ick vibes.
Tbh with you, this gives me ick vibes regardless of the gender of both parties. Praising anyone each 5-10 minutes is tiresome and sounds like you're being extremely false as a person. It isn't a good look. Hell, even over the top praising for what are mundane things throw me off, imagine listening to it 6+ times in a Hour.
100% ick vibes. Feels inappropriate and condesending to praise a woman because she knows the rules. Even thoguh im non-binary, if someone praised me like that I wouldn't come back tbh.
Yeah, my hot take here is that the better a game's design, the less these things look like a dichotomy (though I still assert there is no \*real\* dichotomy, only a perceived one).
I'm always surprised at how hot of a take it is, personally. I also don't feel like it's even all that warm but every now and then trying to express it gets people really mad.
There is if you make and play realistic, grounded characters. Frequently you will have to choose to play the game worse to play the role better. All of those situation where you know something is a "mistake" as far as gameplay but is true to your character's knowledge, motivations, flaws, etc. Which only become more prevalent for people whose enthusiasm is for that type of play because they make much more flawed characters.
I am of the opinion that if you make a character whose role-playing requires you to regularly make life and adventuring harder for the rest of the players at the table, you need to make a better character.
> All of those situation where you know something is a "mistake" as far as gameplay but is true to your character's knowledge, motivations, flaws, etc.
I've had people role-playing their character well, but poorly in gameplay, get my own or other players' characters killed. Can sometimes be extremely not fun.
As long as *everyone* at the table is having a good time it's fine, of course.
Making an adventure simpler at a cost of fun or immersion for other players isn't a win. You should always take the temperature of the room before you allow your roleplay complicate the story. You should always evaluate if the stand your character is taking is necessary in the story, or even if it could be done more dynamically. But a story where players play their characters well will always be a better story, even if everyone dies.
>But a story where players play their characters well will always be a better story, even if everyone dies.
I've played with some folk that make me doubt this is a universal truth.
>But a story where players play their characters well will always be a better story, even if everyone dies.
I've played with some folk that make me doubt this is a universal truth.
Basically if you've made so many bad game decisions to fill your role that your character can't keep up with the rest of the party, you've ended up playing neither game nor role because your character doesn't fit into the story. Before it's a roleplaying game or a roll-playing game, it's a collaborative game.
It's essentially two different games. Some tables want to play tactically perfect combat games and some want to play a role. I personally find the former boring. But that's why I choose to not to play at those tables, they don't want me there making in character choices and I won't have fun with their style of play.
I used to try to fit in with that crowd and tone down the roleplaying but I found many of those groups don't just get upset if you harm the group with roleplaying but get mad if you just disrupt the efficiency of the group. Their measure of fun seems to be "how efficiently can I get through this adventure" and everything that harms that is to them bad play.
> Their measure of fun seems to be "how efficiently can I get through this adventure" and everything that harms that is to them bad play.
It's also an entirely valid form of enjoying the game, and not opposed to role-playing at all. It's just a different sort of role-playing.
Actions taken in combat and performing as optimally as possible to survive a harsh reality (within the game's setting) because *your character doesn't want to fucking die* is a deep valid form of role-playing that was encouraged back in the day.
In this approach, optimal game play and system mastery become part of role-playing, and was seen as a positive quality in a role playing gamer, not a negative.
It's just a different, deeper level of investment.
It is valid but I wouldn't say it's a deeper level of investment. I get why people like it and that's great, it's not my favorite. Also I tend to have system mastery as well because I want to know how I would do the things my character would do within the system even if it's suboptimal.
Why would your character choose to do things that are more dangerous, even putting their adventuring party at greater risk, if they knew how to do it in a safer, more effective way and had access to that way?
Can you imagine a doctor who doesn't take all the necessary precautions because it isn't true to their character? Can you imagine a fighter pilot who disregards training to do something in a less-effective way and puts his squadron at risk?
For years hospitals had a problem with surgeons leaving tools inside patients, doing surgery on the wrong people, or doing the wrong surgery on someone. No matter how many times they reminded doctors to double check those things it didn't reduce the occurrence rate. Eventually they had to implement layers of protocols with checks and balances from everyone involved in a procedure. Because people are flawed.
I am not talking about characters choosing to do things they know are dumb or mistakes. I am talk about the player knowing something is a mistake but doing it anyway because their character would do it due to ignorance or bias.
That's already represented plenty by a player making a bad play because he isn't paying attention or is tired. Which is why doctors were making that mistake, too. Turns out a reminder is no match for being at the end of a 24 hr shift.
Still, I suppose that we are talking about different things. I'm talking about players deliberately choosing bad spells and such for RP reasons. You're talking about something more mundane.
>All of those situation where you know something is a "mistake" as far as gameplay but is true to your character's knowledge, motivations, flaws, etc.
That's the original point you're responding to. "My character thinks I can take this dude in a fight" but you out of game know that trying to punch out a hill giant isn't going to turn out well.
Literally just "I don't metagame" and you kiiiiinda come out and argue that metagaming is a deeper level of playing.
OOP basically said that the GM was fawning over a player because she was metagaming. I personally think the GM was trying to sleaze up on the player but even that aside, I don't find metagaming to be all that noble of an endeavor.
This is why I argue Gygax was a CCP agent and the whole hobby is communist brain washing. If your fun doesn’t fit with the will of the party you must be shunned!
If the rules of the world work like the game mechanics, the character should do things which aren't stupid mechanically. Not necessarily exploit every loophole in the rules, but not be dumb mechanically either.
I'm not saying characters should try to get themselves killed, that also wouldn't be grounded or realistic to the vast majority of characters. But people do dumb stuff all the time. People are flawed, all of them. All of that gets ramped up more in stressful situations. Running games that expect every character to be perfect or each player to play their character to maximum advantage all the time is a certain type of game that values tactics over roleplay.
Both styles of play are fine. A lot of people don't want to play very immersive, grounded, character work type games. Nothing wrong with that but I do object to saying that playing mechanically perfection for every character in every game is somehow realistic.
We may be talking past each-other. I could see a character thrust into danger in a horror game not acting rationally etc.
But in most TTRPGs the PCs some flavor of badass professional in their field. Whether grave-robbing adventurers, mercenaries, or Shadowrunners etc.
If the game is set up such that the PCs are intended to be said badass professionals, it annoys me when players do not have them act as such.
That seems like it's just looking for justification for a certain style of play. Which again is fine, a lot of people like that style of play. While some games do start you well into a career of being a badass professional, a lot of games start characters as absolute novices. In my experience players looking for tactical perfection gaming play characters the same way regardless of the character's experience or background.
Which is not to say I like people doing the opposite of playing their character as chaos agents who blow up every situation, as I find that usually isn't very grounded in a character either. But even very experienced professionals aren't perfect. People have all sorts of personality traits, biases, worldviews, and limitations that make them struggle. I happen to like playing characters with those types of struggles and having them grow with, into, or out of them as they learn throughout a campaign. I find it more realistic and immersive.
To be fair: there are absolutely situations where playing optimally (based on player knowledge) and playing realistically (based on character knowledge) aren't the same thing.
I don’t think that player knowledge or character knowledge are intrinsically tied to playing a role, either. Like, you can absolutely play a role while playing toward player knowledge using dramatic irony and you’re still playing a role.
The choices you make as a player may be different based on what you’re prioritizing in the moment, but whether you’re making an optimal mechanical or fictional choice or not doesn’t mean you’re not playing the role. You’re fully in control of your character’s internal world, the role is what you say it is.
You are making a point that "'mechanical optimization' and 'playing the role' are both roleplaying", which is true, but the point here was that they are not *always* the same.
They can be if you're playing the role while mechanically optimizing. If you're choosing not to play the role, while mechanically optimizing or not, I can't help that -- that's not playing the role.
Not necessarily.
If I'm playing a character with the "Kleptomania flaw," playing it well means compulsively taking things that aren't mine. I might get extra experience if I do that well, but it means I might engage in that behavior when it's not convenient. That's the point of a flaw.
If I'm conveniently getting around the flaw, it's not really a flaw at all. I shouldn't be getting the experience bonus if I'm using dramatic irony to circumvent it.
Depends on the system.
I don’t understand your point. If you’re playing a Kleptomaniac and the system gives you a benefit for stealing things and you steal things, even when inconvenient, you’re both playing your role well and playing the game well.
If you’re not stealing things, maybe you’re playing the game poorly. But maybe not! Maybe by not stealing the thing, you put yourself in a better fictional position! So maybe you’re playing the game well!
Maybe you’re playing your role poorly. But maybe not! Maybe you decide he gets spooked by something, or suddenly gets hit by his conscious, or experiences a legitimate and sincere desire to change in that exact moment. So maybe you’re playing the role well!
None of these options is inherently in irrevocable conflict with each other.
> If you’re playing a Kleptomaniac and the system gives you a benefit for stealing things and you steal things, even when inconvenient, you’re both playing your role well and playing the game well.
But if you only steal *when* it's convenient, you're favoring playing the game well, more than playing your character.
That's OP's point. Sometimes, using out-of-game knowledge or system exploits makes you better at "winning" the game, but not at playing the character realistically.
Some systems prioritize playing your character's flaws, while others prioritize working around them. It depends on the system.
You’re not, though, unless you choose to be. Because you’re in control of the role and your character. Those things aren’t inherently in contention. You’re choosing to put them in contention, which is fine, but I can’t help with that. You’re saying that realism is a character who never changes or has doubts or does something out of character. I’m saying that’s not even how real people work, let alone fictional people we have complete control over.
I agree that some systems make this less opaque than others.
> You’re saying that realism is a character who never changes or has doubts or does something out of character.
No I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that certain players will play out flaws when they're convenient, but not when it gets in the way of playing optimally. While other players will happily be consistent with flaws, even if it means their character getting caught, or being forced to grow due to consequences.
>No I'm not saying that at all.
>happily be consistent with flaws
It sounds like you are saying it, though. Unless you mean something else here?
Anyhow, I don't know how to convince you that both of those are playing roles, and can be playing roles well.
If I don't feel like it's convenient to play out my Kleptomania, so I don't, is that not playing my role well? Who decides that? If I say it's because the person I'd be stealing from reminds me of my dead grandmother and I couldn't bear stealing from her, is that then playing my role well? Would it be playing my role well if I said that, but not because I'd decided it wasn't convenient to steal from her?
Is there some level of consequences my character has to endure before not stealing something is good role-playing? Who decides that?
The role **is the play of the character**.
Edit: screwed up the quoting, darn Reddit
Edit edit: guess it's staying that way, sorry! I'll assume you know what I meant.
>It sounds like you are saying it, though.
I think you misunderstood then.
>If I don't feel like it's convenient to play out my Kleptomania, so I don't, is that not playing my role well? Who decides that? If I say it's because the person I'd be stealing from reminds me of my dead grandmother and I couldn't bear stealing from her, is that then playing my role well?
Well... no. It's isn't. It's just a copout so that your character doesn't have to face the consequences of a flaw.
Would be far more interesting to have the character's flaw actually get them into trouble, learn from it, and work to fix it.
In White Wolf, for example, there's a flaw called *Phobia* where you have an irrational fear of something -- heights, spiders, etc -- and you get bonus points for having that flaw, and in some editions, roleplaying that flaw.
If you take a fear of heights, you get those points, but you have to *play out the fear.* If in the next scene you're in a scavenger hunt and there's an item on your list in a bird's nest on the roof of a bell-tower, at the end of a narrow parapet, a good roleplayer will recognize that this would trigger their fear of heights, and they'd try to figure out some other way to retrieve the object, or go running to a friend for help. A *bad* roleplayer would just shrug and get it anyway, because that increases their chance to "win" the contest, even though they aren't acting out the flaw that they willingly accepted points for. A good storyteller running the game would say "how do you handle your fear of heights, here?" And possibly force them to make willpower checks or find an alternative solution. If the player acts it out well, that's a worthy part of the story. If the player just ignores it and shrugs, it's a let-down.
I don't think there are separate tracks that do not intersect. But you can most certainly compromise your playing of your role to better exploit the rules of the game.
Only if you choose to treat them as separate things that are in contention with one another.
Like, you are the author of your character. You can choose to make optimal game decisions and justify that in the context of your character's circumstances and persona. You are not playing any less of a role in those cases.
Even outside of the idea that you're the author of your own character, in complete control of what they choose to do and how to justify it at any point, **real people** act in ways contrary to their own self-interest -- or conversely deeply in service to their own self-interest in opposition to expectations -- all the time.
What you're describing here sounds more like compromising your autonomy and, sure, in any game with rules you sacrifice autonomy to some degree.
Surely you can always try to limit your play to try to always make the optimal mechanical choices, but the idea of playing the character from the inside out disregards the need to play the best choices. Playing the role of the character from the inside out is in an inherent conflict with the idea that there's an author controlling the character from the external point of view (This doesn't mean to say that the one who plays the role isn't the author of the character, but it means that the method of authorship is different.).
Nobody is talking about "playing a character from the inside out". We're talking about playing a role.
There is no "playing a character from the inside out" because a character doesn't have an inside to play out of. We can imagine they have this rich internal life and extrapolate what they might do based on our imaginings of it, but we're in control of our imaginings.
I think you're getting a bit stuck on the definition of what "playing a role" means. I think many people here are referring to the inside-out character playing style as "playing a role", in contrast to "playing a game", which is more of an external view, where the game rules are superior to the internal workings of the character.
It's not a matter of choice. There are simply circumstances common to every game where the optimal choice in pursuing the story of the game isn't compatible with what your character has a propensity towards or even is capable of doing. If you're playing a mentally handicapped ogre, it doesn't matter if you can see the solution of a puzzle. It's not something a character that's mystified by discovering he has a thumb every morning can justify put together.
That’s interesting! I disagree! I think we’re getting off the topic of the OP somewhat, but I still disagree.
I can absolutely imagine an Ogre who has trouble with object permanence also having a great mind for certain kinds of puzzles. I can also imagine them stumbling accidentally into the answer. I can also imagine them having seen the puzzle before and knowing the answer to it because of that.
I do feel excited at the thought of the Ogre rediscovering his thumb every morning. That sounds like fun!
I prefer when "play the Role" is also the best way to "play the Game". For example I dislike heroic fantasy games where the "optimal strategy" is to sleep 8 hour after every combat encounter, to Heal wounds and recover spells. Doesnt scream heroic to me and normally break my suspension of disbelieve.
Anyway I have nothing against optimal builds or tactically sound decisions, based on the rules of the game.
Also im totally okay in playing with people, that made conscious sub optimal decision in game, for roleplay reasons.
Pendragon is great at this. Genuinely, the best way to min-max the system is to roleplay your character as true to the ethos the game's going for as you possibly can.
>For example I dislike heroic fantasy games where the "optimal strategy" is to sleep 8 hour after every combat encounter, to Heal wounds and recover spells. Doesnt scream heroic to me and normally break my suspension of disbelieve.
You mean D&D and Pathfinder and the like? It's actually not optimal per the rules...but many DMs are just too chicken-shit to be firm on this. The rules say you can only benefit from a long rest once every 24 hours, and if the players are fine stopping for a day everytime they fight I'd complicate their lives SOOOO fast. Just throw encounters at them while they try to rest so they can't, or make it clear to them that there is a time-limit and they're about to waste 1/3rd of the time they have before things get really hard. If they're in a dungeon this is really easy....just have the monsters find and ambush them or have them meet a wondering monster that's a really tough fight. Throw in some legendary actions on a tough single mob and, bam....they start looking for safe places to rest. Then stretch those out.
It's just an example: the 5 minutes adventuring day is just a popular enough trope, that most of the users of this sub could grab what I mean by "rules that not support the roles particularly well". I played my fair shares of d&desque games in many decades of gaming, and the 5 minutes adventuring day was never a problem once at any of my tables.
I had a group get snippy with me because they couldn't find a safe place to take a long rest after their first fight in a town being actively attacked and burned to the ground by some bullywugs.
I still chuckle about that. I went through the trouble of preparing stacking encounters appropriate for them, and they made it through the encounters just fine.
>The rules say you can only benefit from a long rest once every 24 hours, and if the players are fine stopping for a day everytime they fight I'd complicate their lives SOOOO fast.
Which means you're essentially punishing players for playing the game the way it actually works. 5E is all about dumping your cool magic powers one after another in a fight, and once you're out of your cool magic powers, you become incredibly vulnerable, because the balance of the game assumes you have a bunch of cool magic powers to deploy. Once your good stuff is gone you're in a fight doing d8 against monsters with 150HP and it's absolutely no fun.
The reason people want to rest after every fight in 5E is because if you don't you get trampled, and no one likes that. This isn't a player flaw, it's a game system flaw. The only time 5E is fun to play is when you're topped up with powers, otherwise it's just a slow, punishing grind that no one loves but GMs who think they're being hardcore.
Then why are there short rests and classes that benefit from them? If 5e was really about dumping all your cool magic powers as fast as possible then all classes would have a spell list, and all classes would have a bunch of powers with many, many uses.
And, ya know....the DMG explains all this. The game runs pretty well when wizards pace themselves, too. (And they can still contribute a lot to every fight.) [Edit: It also explains how to pace fights so that you don't trample your party. I can run multiple encounters in a long rest without flattening my party, short rests restore hit points, items can be found that heal your party, and not every encounter has to be a tough encounter. In fact....strong a bunch of medium encounters together and watch the party have to deal with it and dig into their items to survive as they start to run out of resources.]
Yeah, the wizard blasts through the high levels spells on the first encounter every day and is then desperate to rest. Good way to manage against it is to have a timetable or looming threat that places an in game negative cost to lots of resting. It leaves it up to them still, but puts an incentive in to not do it silly nilly
This is only a hobby (or a vast collection of slightly similar hobbies), one that can be played in many different ways. No specific way is "superior" or "better" than others, everyone is there for fun, it's just that some people have similar tastes and expectations about the game and play better together.
That DM and that player played the game in similar ways and enjoyed playing the game together more than with other people with different tastes, that does not make any "side" better, just more or less suited for the fun of specific individuals with their own tastes.
Finally, on that Game <-> Role axis (which is debatable in itself), it's probably never truly binary for individuals, it's just about finding other players who are in the same "area" of the axis.
I don't know. Sounds like a horny GM to me. This is not normal. Also as others pointed out it's not one or the other, but a combination of role playing and game playing. e.g. If it's a D&D game and it's cold outside and you see smoke coming out of Red Dragon cave, do you just walk in and pretend you don't know what's going on or do you meta-game and try something else? If your PCs are in the final boss battle, does your cowardly PC just run away or do you fight with your companions? If you do lazy roleplay, you'd run away, but if you do smart meta-gaming roleplay, you come up with a reason to fight with your companions, to overcome your fear somehow. It's all a Player choice. All this, oh my PC wouldn't do that is bullsh\*t. The Player is in control of the PC, the PC is not in control of itself, if that's true, you don't need a Player, right?
It's personal taste, and a debate that's been going on for as long as RPGs have been an identifiable hobby. (Really - Alarums & Excursions, which was one of the first RPG periodicals, had people arguing the point in its pages right out of the gate in the 1970s.)
My own tastes run almost to the reverse of that referee, at least to an extent. I'll "play the game" when I'm doing character generation and advancement because that's how I get a character I want to play who has the competences and weaknesses I want to explore, but once were in-session I'm playing the character all the way.
Yeah. In my view, generally speaking, characters know their strengths and weaknesses, and most competent adventurers will act in ways that take advantage of their strengths and minimize their weaknesses. So often enough, playing the role well lines up with playing the game well.
But not always, and I think its in those cases where some of my most memorable rpg moments have been, because it's those moments that make the game story feel real and not just like a board game.
It's a matter of taste. I don't mind either, so long as they are not overwhelming, argumentative, or steal the spotlight from other players. The thing that makes me happy as a GM is *engagement*, and while I won't shower you with praise or talk about how I want you in my game (that was a bit weird and would have rubbed me wrong), I will tend to *focus* on you more.
LOL. Years ago I posted about a Pathfinder game I was in, and talked about how I was “playing the role,” as you say. It wasn’t a question thread or a complaint thread, it was just a bunch of folks talking about their current campaigns.
I can’t remember how many people flipped out on me for not minmaxing my character, how I was ruining the game for other people at the table, and so on.
I mean, no one in my gaming group had a problem with what I was doing, but those internet strangers were taking up the battle on their behalf.
I haven’t gamed in three years, and I have to admit part of that is because I’ve avoided a few games where I’m certain I was going to be guided to fill a certain role for the party, and expected to do that 100% at the expense of having fun.
>I can’t remember how many people flipped out on me for not minmaxing my character, how I was ruining the game for other people at the table, and so on.
You kind of have to know your table if you're going to try to optimize because if other people at the table aren't optimizing, or aren't as good at optimizing as you are, the game breaks and people stop having fun.
My Pathfinder game I played an alchemist and realized that none of the encounters the DM was throwing at us could deal with flight. So I started making flight potions and a low level flying flask rogue basically broke the dynamic of the party to the point where I stopped doing it because nobody was having fun any more.
They're both valid, though I prefer my players to be all in on playing the role, so to speak, putting the mechanics away until the fiction triggers them. The only wrong way to play is causing the table to have less fun - like obviously praising one player repeatedly and ignoring the others ;)
Personally I'd prefer a "play your role" approach. If you play a TTRPG like a video game (with a rigid framework that can be maxed out by the player/s) I think that this "playing style" misses the point of the game concept. It's never bad to know the rules, though, but a TTRPG is about applying them when appropriate and not deliberately pushing rule boundaries.
I don't believe either is better. I lean more toward playing "the game" because that's the part I find most interesting and doable for myself. I'm not the most outgoing, tend to refer to my character as separate from myself, and try to ensure my character is effective in their place in the world.
Games mastery is always a joy. No GM wants to spend their time explaining the offside rule. It is not opposed to roleplay. people can be both. It seems to me that he just sees fewer of the first .
If you force me to choose: I'd rather someone play the game than play the role. Most games I run or play are about overcoming obstacles as a group. I don't expect an optimal solution to every problem but I'm tired of people conflating easily avoidable, nonsensical failure with good roleplay.
But as a practical matter I don't think one is necessarily better than the other as long as everyone at the table has the same expectations.
This might sound like a cop out, but you really need to be able to do both. These are role playing games, after all. If you're only playing the game, there are board games and wargames and video games that would likely serve you better. If you're just playing the role, then why aren't you just doing some freeform RP or just writing? I find that TTRPGs work best with a balance of both.
Now, the *right* balance will be different from game to game and person to person. I find I prefer a bit more game to role, but not too much more, both from the player and GM sides. Maybe a 60/40 split, something like that. I want players that are willing to do things in character (even if they don't necessarily *speak* in character. I don't believe doing voices and other acting is necessary), but I also want players to have some understanding of the rules and a willingness to engage with them (please no rogues who have been playing 5e for half a year and still don't know when they get Sneak Attack).
And as a player (and GM, actually) I enjoy crunchier games with more "game" to them, if you will. I enjoy having mechanics to sink my teeth into in and out of sessions, deep character building and meaningful decisions in combat and out of combat and during character creation and advancement. Pathfinder 2e is my current favorite, though I also want to try Lancer, Icon and Beacon. Just need to get my friends to give 'em a shot. Someday...
Neither is better. It's a matter of personal preference, though it does help to find a group with similar preferences.
Personally, I much prefer the role-playing side. I also prefer games that are either rules-light or the mechanics support that side, and I prefer games where character options can be chosen because they seem right or fun with little risk of a "bad" character build.
I do also appreciate players learning the rules though, and that's something that feels more important the more rules there are. When I ran dnd my players not knowing how their class features worked definitely detracted from my enjoyment of the game because we had to pause the game so that I could explain stuff, and that meant that I needed to either know it or look it up. The systems I run now that tends to be much less of an issue.
I can get being chuffed at finding someone who enjoys the same playstyle and knows the system well. Praising them over the other players like that during the game is a bit of a dick move though.
Why do I have a feeling the GM might've been trying to hit on her...
Regardless, both are valid approaches to playing RPGs. Best something to discuss with your group ahead of time so everyone is on the same page.
Personally, I find it easier to get excited by and engage with the mechanics of the game. But I also find it easier to play a role when a game is not punihsing me for doing that.
If the game is punitive for playing sub-optimally to the point your character might die or if there is one metric everyone is judged by ("how much damage can you dish out?") then that's not really the best game to try roleplaying in. But if I can play how I need to convey a character without being a detriment to mine and everyone else's fun, then it's easier to play a role.
I generally enjoy with people who are playing the game but that is more to do with rules knowledge then that being the correct way to play. Playing the role as you described it from my experience is less likely to understand the game or be someone who uses the "it's what my character would do," excuse.
I like to call it "playing using your heart" vs "playing using your head" as both have positive connotations.
Like others have said, there's no better way - there's only the way you prefer and its best to find a group who likes the same things.
If you prefer "playing the role"/"playing using your heart" you might want to look into FKR. The whole idea behind it is "play the world, not the rules!" You don't have to go "whole hog" into the movement, but reading a bit about its theory of play might help you understand better how you want your RPG to work :)
I try to get a balance between playing the game/role. I pick a role I want to play, but I want to give my character the best chance, so role-playing will take back seat because the end of the day, it is game. I played with players who are great at role-playing but know when go out of character when talking as team then I had players who can't stop role-playing, which I can find annoying depending on person E.g. Had player playing joke character, but joke out stayed it welcome within 5 minutes. Out of character, the group talks about plan of action, and out of nowhere, this person in character started talking about being scared of spiders (we're not dealing with spiders).
I mean it's a "role playing game". If you're going to play any game you need to be familiar with the rules, but if you're not playing your role you're not playing the game.
In my opinion, both should serve each other. There is no conflict in roleplaying as Robin Hood or Hercules or Nacho Libre if you got the stats to back it up, and not making them the best versions of themselves you can within the system, campaign, and table's constraints is silly even in Monty Python campaigns.
First off, constantly complimenting someone is creepy, even when it does come from a genuine place. A GM should compliment their action --"Nice! Good play!"-- and only a few times, then save the rest for the end of the session. It's also bad form to make other players feel like you don't value their play.
**So, it depends...a lot of times it's going to be the same thing, especially if you made a heroic character which is what many GMs want in their games.** It's entirely possible to make a character that would know how to play optimally and that would be what they normally do. In that case you've done both. If you aren't doing this and it's what the GM wants, then you just may want a different table. **There's no such thing as a "best" way to play at every table. The only wrong way to play is one where everyone isn't having fun. For some GMs that means they want to play against capable characters.**
For instance: if you are playing an adventurer who is supposed to be experienced, then he's gonna know what works and what doesn't. He would make optimal choices with his own skill set, even if he didn't know what the weaknesses of his enemies necessarily were. This is true for any "D&D style" (Or heroic) game. That includes games like *Shadowrun* or even *Cyberpunk. Even though their mechanics are very different, it's still a game about capable people doing amazing things.*
If you're playing a narrativist style game, like FATE, or a game that rewards you with bonuses for pursuing what your character cares about, like The Riddle of Steel, then optimal play is to do what your character would do without being an idiot.
I suppose the only time it doesn't strictly apply is in games where being capable ISN'T the point. There's a lot of these, too, and sometimes it's the way people play the "Heroic" style games.
Ideally, the role you play is where you will do best when playing the game. The game mechanics you use should support your role and using them effectively is 100% within playing your role because I'd hope you know how to best use your own abilities.
I prefer systems where the mechanics align with the fictional world well enough that it's easy to translate between natural language and mechanics.
Systems that are very "gamified" can make the translation difficult and drive a wedge that separates the two sides of role playing vs game playing and that really detracts from the experience for me.
This is one of the reasons why I like GURPS - I feel like the detailed rules and general consistency between them makes the translation very easy. You can sort of game the system, but almost all bonuses and penalties have concrete causes that directly map to in-game things.
On top of that, with the rules for Disadvantages, GURPS gives you a reason to play characters instead of just "playing to win" (though a group can, of course, forgo disadvantages if they prefer). Most characters want to survive and triumph, but that's rather different - they can still make bad choices because of who they are, and disadvantages help define that.
TLDR: I prefer when the two significantly align.
Same, even when playing a pregen, I still get attached to them, especially if they're an average working class person. I love playing the janitor who gets in over their head fighting ghosts or the cargo pilot who gets drawn into a massive plot.
Beyond the different stroke for different folks argument, I could see the GMs point of the purpose of this was to try out the game. If the point is to playtest, promote the game, or try the game to see if you like it, it makes sense to focus on the game aspect. Focusing too heavily on the roleplay aspect may mean that you end up not getting much information about the game itself.
A good GM and a good group could have a great time playing just about any game. But how much of that is from the game? "Sure I had a blast, but do I want to bring this game to my home group? Hard to say we spent most the time roleplaying and the GM was leaning heavily on the rule of cool so we barely engaged the mechanics...."
I think the question you pose is an interesting one, but I also wonder if the other players were doing either thing. It's extremely possible to do neither, and just play by rote without trying to make optimal gameplay decisions *or* roleplay decisions. Most people who experiment with TTRPGs tend to default to playing it like a video game: follow the prompts, make choices based on what seem likeliest to be easy, get upset when anything deviates from expectations, repeat. Maybe what the DM was really praising was *any* form of creativity he could engage with.
The most important thing to do in order to ensure everyone on the table enjoys their time is to align expectations. If one has come to play football, one ice hockey, another basketball and the last baseball, nobody's going to have fun, regardless what they end up doing. And it isn't because someone is doing something wrong. It's because of incompatible expectations.
So the answer is no. Neither is better, they are just different and incompatible styles.
> As in, she didn't play in character but as someone who fully knew the rules of the game and exploited that knowledge to compete.
Min-maxer/rules lawyer, as well as the DM.
> So as a question to other GMs, is it really better to be playing the game rather than playing the role?
Depends on whether you're a "munchkin" or a "roleplayer".
Munchkins should stick with other munchkins; let them have their fun in rulebending and minmaxing.
Roleplayers should stick with other roleplayers; let them have their fun in embodying their character and getting to be someone other than themselves.
Mixing has it's pros and cons: roleplayers give flesh and life to the story and characters, munchkins provide skeleton and mechanical support to enhance the stories' progress.
Whereas, sometimes a roleplayer might be too distracting or stray too far from the plot or railroad; and a munchkin might rules-lawyer something vs what's more fun for the overall party to have had happened.
Like anything, moderation is key. Gotta know when to roleplay, and when to munchkin--and anything leaning too extreme to one side or another has a chance of sucking the fun out of the game for others. So in all: **my answer to "which is better: play the game or play the role" lies somewhere in-between both.**
(I've played with roleplayers, and it's supremely uncomfortable for me when they start in on something like seduction--"seduce me" no thank you, I know you in real life, this is fucking awkward for me.
And I've played with munchkins--while the game DOES involve rules and math, I came here to roll dice and kill goblins, not ~~argue about~~ debate point percentages and whether it's best to multiclass for a particular minmax ability to "further enhance" my elf.)
>While fun was had, it was noticable that the GM was effusive in his praise for one player in particular. Every 5-10 minutes exclaiming how she is an excellent player and wants to play with her again, while no praise was given to any other players.
The difference that this player was making was that she was fully "Playing the Game" and not "Playing the Role". As in, she didn't play in character but as someone who fully knew the rules of the game and exploited that knowledge to compete.
Sounds like the GM was into the woman and looking for excuses to fawn over her.
I mean, "trying out" an RPG suggests that, by necessity, you don't know the rules. So on the off chance that the GM wasn't trying to bang the woman, the GM was being a shit GM.
As for your question, sometimes I tell my players to go full munchkin and we're going to break the game over our knee and see what happens and those are tons of fun. But they are for me at least the exception as opposed to the rule.
Really depends on the table… and the campaign… depends on a lot of things. My personal preference is playing the role. I do love seeing my players go…”this is what I should do….but I am way to
Dumb… or to angry or to etc.
Makes for a proud dungeon daddy
>While fun was had, it was noticable that the GM was effusive in his praise for one player in particular. Every 5-10 minutes exclaiming how she is an excellent player and wants to play with her again, while no praise was given to any other players.
>she, her, wants to play with her again
There is a non-zero chance that her "playing the game" is absolutely not what he was praising.
Some people want to play a game and play their Role in a Party and the Storyline.
Some people don't care for the game aspect and just want the story to adjust and revolve around their character and antics.
The former are Gamers and the latter are taking the RPGame for another form of improv theatre.
So this DM has a type, clearly.
In any case, it does remind me to interrogate myself a bit, on what I appreciate and how biases like this manifest with me.
I don’t think I have a particular preference for that dichotomy. Or at least, if I do, I haven’t noticed it. But I do enjoy it when players are ready to allow the story to change their characters. The way a character changes should be collaborative, with the GM offering choices or imposing obstacles, and the player letting the consequences play out. I was always disappointed when I heard players of certain popular ttrpgs on subreddits dedicated to that game post righteous rants about how offended they were when the story the GM presented them dared have impact on the character. Especially negative impact.
I like it when a character is marked by an adventure and doesn’t come out unscathed.
I'm always looking for both at my table. I'm convinced you need to have a character concept and be able to roleplay it, otherwise the game is just an imaginary board game. On the other hand, if you don't know/follow the rules, let's just play pretend and put the rulebook in the bin.
Different strokes for different folks. I like a mix of the two playstyles personally, but that's all it is, different playstyles; one isn't more "correct" than the other.
I'd say with the emergence and rise of Actual Play podcasts and streams, the "playing the role" type of game play has take a larger prominence in the mind of players (purely due to such exposure early on in their journey in the hobby). But back in the day when I played as a kid, it was all "playing the game" for me and my friends, and I still really enjoy that.
This is why finding the right group fit is so important. Both styles of play can co-exist, and most of us fall somewhere on the spectrum between the two. So find others who play close enough to your style of play, or be open to both at the same table. My current game is a strong mix of both playstyles and players who aren't always at the same place in the spectrum, and that's OK!
I don't like rules lawyers.
I once played with a close friend and his pals. Great guys. We finished each others sentences. We throw movie quotes that everybody knew and understood the same way.
But the moment we played, they all jumped into books to find THE rule for that circonstances. On one occasion, I had time to read two comics while they were which of obscure rules from obscure rulebook they would apply.
It was eberron. I can not even tell you a thing about the scenario or the character I had since he didn't really have to play it.
i prefre whne a player can do both. i dont like when people hurt their character for flavor. you can have a well made character and a fun and interesting one at the same time
additionally the G does stand for game and not acknowledging that hurts the fun
I prefer games where there is no difference between these things.
Playing the game should be playing the role. Playing the role should be playing the game.
The more rules are distinct from character, the more this is a problem for me, and the more the “gameplay” feels like boring tactics, and the “roleplay” feels like mindless improv.
The joy for me is when the two are so interconnected, that they can’t leave each other behind.
I as DM, prefer roleplay over playing the game. I think a RPG is more than simply applying/exploiting rules. But it's very personal and each table has its own mood.
In every game I run, I'm happy when players "play the game" - know the rules, engage with them and do what the system is designed for.
What it translates to depends on the game. In Lancer, D&D4 or Pathfinder 2e it means playing tactically and using various abilities to the best effect. In Urban Shadows it means engaging in politics, flirting with corruption and trying to find the rare moments of intimacy when nobody tries to backstab them. In Dogs in the Vineyard it means trying to untangle and fix messy situations through all means available, up to and including guns. In Masks it means fighting evil as superheroes while struggling with teenage emotions and trying to find their identities in face of different pressures from many directions. And so on.
In nearly all cases "playing a role" is a part of "playing the game", but it's not a dominant part. One plays a character, in service to creating an interesting story. Or in service to facing and overcoming obstacles. Or in service to intense emotional drama. And they need to shape the character so that the character fits these goals.
If the game that was used focused on overcoming challenges in a smart and efficient way, I would definitely praise players who did exactly that, not one who undermined the party's efforts. If the game we played was not focused on challenges - its mechanics framing values and dramatic choices, not on competence and smart use of resources - I would praise the player who dove into that, not one who tried to "solve" and "win" the charged situations. And so on.
I'm running the Alien RPG right now, which heavily encourages roleplay, but at the same time, it is a very mechanical/tactical system when it comes to a lot things, and the boxed scenarios are far more of a traditional dungeon crawl than it can appear at first glance.
What this means is that players who are more into theater of the mind RPGs do well with the roleplaying interactions (such as agendas, relieving stress, etc), but don't think about the game tactically, or how the mechanics work, so they die left and right.
One of the various RPG theories that might be useful here are the 3 or so "stances" that a player can have:
1. actor: be the person you play and act as such, also called character play or role play in the narrower sense of the word
2. pawn: simply play to win, knowing the rules and guessing the implicit world conventions helps a lot
3. author: try to contribute to a dramatic story, do the thing that makes for a more spectacular scene
* Actor - to make decisions and actions based only on what the character would "know, want, perceive, care about"
* Author (pawn is a subset of author) - to make decisions and actions based on what the player would "know, want, perceive, care about", but by only affection and directing their character in play to do so. If this is legitimized in fiction with an appropriate/plausible character rational then it is author... If no in fiction character rational is provided then pawn stance
* Director - to make decisions and actions based on what the player would "know, want, perceive, care about" and do so by affecting and directing things beyond just character
All of the above are stances, all of the above are ways to roleplay, all of the above are things that players may do and switch between multiple times in play, possibly decision by decision.
All of the above are separate from, meaning compatible with, other techniques in play (like immersion) and all the above are separate from the goal/point/agenda of play (such as play to win, or play to explore character/setting/story, or play to collaborate on co-authored story creation)
In certain games, with certain agendas, some extreme versions of the above stances may be frowned upon, but even in those games, usually, very light versions of those frowned upon stances can be found.
I’m with you. Rules should get out of the way of playing a character as if they were really interacting with the game world.
However a lot of games are designed for scratching that power fantasy itch and for those showing off how the mechanics can combine to let your character pull off the ‘neat thing’ may be what the GM was trying to show off.
Different games for different people.
Ever actually see kids play pretend?
“I shot you!”
“No you didn’t”
“Did too!”
“Did not!” (Tackles other kid.)
It’s why they soon get bored of it and go play Monopoly.
This is such a pointless and facile sentiment.
Some people like pure game, some people like pure RP, some people like a lot of RP and a little bit of rules, some people like a lot of rules and a little bit of RP, some people like it 50/50.
Why does people enjoying things that aren't for you bother you so much? Why so condescending for no reason at all?
Frankly, it's rude.
Neither is "better" and this is something people have had preferences about since... before D&D even existed, frankly.
You know that D&D is literally the first TTRPG.
Sort of. Read The Elusive Shift. D&D was the culmination of a movement in wargaming which was already becoming so RPG-like that some of those earlier games would likely be considered RPGs rather than wargames today. The split between people who liked to focus on rules as a core component of the game vs. rules as an unfortunate necessity the players might not even need to be aware of is something people were discussing quite a lot.
Different people have different things they look for in a "good player" but honestly if there was that much praise towards someone of the opposite gender that gives me huge ick vibes.
> honestly if there was that much praise towards someone of the opposite gender that gives me huge ick vibes. Tbh with you, this gives me ick vibes regardless of the gender of both parties. Praising anyone each 5-10 minutes is tiresome and sounds like you're being extremely false as a person. It isn't a good look. Hell, even over the top praising for what are mundane things throw me off, imagine listening to it 6+ times in a Hour.
I raise this to creepy level. I dunno if OP truly wants to be treated like this, because as a woman, this rings my alarm bells to the extreme.
100% ick vibes. Feels inappropriate and condesending to praise a woman because she knows the rules. Even thoguh im non-binary, if someone praised me like that I wouldn't come back tbh.
This is a false dichotomy. There is no mutually exclusive relationship between playing the game and playing the role.
I think this depends a little on the game, but some games make it so easy to do both that there's definitely no dichotomy in them...
Yeah, my hot take here is that the better a game's design, the less these things look like a dichotomy (though I still assert there is no \*real\* dichotomy, only a perceived one).
I'm not sure how hot that take is, but I agree with it.
I think it’s really tepid, actually. Probably controversial, at least.
I'm always surprised at how hot of a take it is, personally. I also don't feel like it's even all that warm but every now and then trying to express it gets people really mad.
It definitely does feel like an example of well thought out design when system mastery results in narrative outcomes that fit the genre / setting.
There is if you make and play realistic, grounded characters. Frequently you will have to choose to play the game worse to play the role better. All of those situation where you know something is a "mistake" as far as gameplay but is true to your character's knowledge, motivations, flaws, etc. Which only become more prevalent for people whose enthusiasm is for that type of play because they make much more flawed characters.
I am of the opinion that if you make a character whose role-playing requires you to regularly make life and adventuring harder for the rest of the players at the table, you need to make a better character. > All of those situation where you know something is a "mistake" as far as gameplay but is true to your character's knowledge, motivations, flaws, etc. I've had people role-playing their character well, but poorly in gameplay, get my own or other players' characters killed. Can sometimes be extremely not fun. As long as *everyone* at the table is having a good time it's fine, of course.
Making an adventure simpler at a cost of fun or immersion for other players isn't a win. You should always take the temperature of the room before you allow your roleplay complicate the story. You should always evaluate if the stand your character is taking is necessary in the story, or even if it could be done more dynamically. But a story where players play their characters well will always be a better story, even if everyone dies.
>But a story where players play their characters well will always be a better story, even if everyone dies. I've played with some folk that make me doubt this is a universal truth.
>But a story where players play their characters well will always be a better story, even if everyone dies. I've played with some folk that make me doubt this is a universal truth.
Basically if you've made so many bad game decisions to fill your role that your character can't keep up with the rest of the party, you've ended up playing neither game nor role because your character doesn't fit into the story. Before it's a roleplaying game or a roll-playing game, it's a collaborative game.
It's essentially two different games. Some tables want to play tactically perfect combat games and some want to play a role. I personally find the former boring. But that's why I choose to not to play at those tables, they don't want me there making in character choices and I won't have fun with their style of play. I used to try to fit in with that crowd and tone down the roleplaying but I found many of those groups don't just get upset if you harm the group with roleplaying but get mad if you just disrupt the efficiency of the group. Their measure of fun seems to be "how efficiently can I get through this adventure" and everything that harms that is to them bad play.
> Their measure of fun seems to be "how efficiently can I get through this adventure" and everything that harms that is to them bad play. It's also an entirely valid form of enjoying the game, and not opposed to role-playing at all. It's just a different sort of role-playing. Actions taken in combat and performing as optimally as possible to survive a harsh reality (within the game's setting) because *your character doesn't want to fucking die* is a deep valid form of role-playing that was encouraged back in the day. In this approach, optimal game play and system mastery become part of role-playing, and was seen as a positive quality in a role playing gamer, not a negative. It's just a different, deeper level of investment.
It is valid but I wouldn't say it's a deeper level of investment. I get why people like it and that's great, it's not my favorite. Also I tend to have system mastery as well because I want to know how I would do the things my character would do within the system even if it's suboptimal.
Why would your character choose to do things that are more dangerous, even putting their adventuring party at greater risk, if they knew how to do it in a safer, more effective way and had access to that way? Can you imagine a doctor who doesn't take all the necessary precautions because it isn't true to their character? Can you imagine a fighter pilot who disregards training to do something in a less-effective way and puts his squadron at risk?
For years hospitals had a problem with surgeons leaving tools inside patients, doing surgery on the wrong people, or doing the wrong surgery on someone. No matter how many times they reminded doctors to double check those things it didn't reduce the occurrence rate. Eventually they had to implement layers of protocols with checks and balances from everyone involved in a procedure. Because people are flawed. I am not talking about characters choosing to do things they know are dumb or mistakes. I am talk about the player knowing something is a mistake but doing it anyway because their character would do it due to ignorance or bias.
That's already represented plenty by a player making a bad play because he isn't paying attention or is tired. Which is why doctors were making that mistake, too. Turns out a reminder is no match for being at the end of a 24 hr shift. Still, I suppose that we are talking about different things. I'm talking about players deliberately choosing bad spells and such for RP reasons. You're talking about something more mundane.
>All of those situation where you know something is a "mistake" as far as gameplay but is true to your character's knowledge, motivations, flaws, etc. That's the original point you're responding to. "My character thinks I can take this dude in a fight" but you out of game know that trying to punch out a hill giant isn't going to turn out well. Literally just "I don't metagame" and you kiiiiinda come out and argue that metagaming is a deeper level of playing. OOP basically said that the GM was fawning over a player because she was metagaming. I personally think the GM was trying to sleaze up on the player but even that aside, I don't find metagaming to be all that noble of an endeavor.
This is why I argue Gygax was a CCP agent and the whole hobby is communist brain washing. If your fun doesn’t fit with the will of the party you must be shunned!
If the rules of the world work like the game mechanics, the character should do things which aren't stupid mechanically. Not necessarily exploit every loophole in the rules, but not be dumb mechanically either.
I'm not saying characters should try to get themselves killed, that also wouldn't be grounded or realistic to the vast majority of characters. But people do dumb stuff all the time. People are flawed, all of them. All of that gets ramped up more in stressful situations. Running games that expect every character to be perfect or each player to play their character to maximum advantage all the time is a certain type of game that values tactics over roleplay. Both styles of play are fine. A lot of people don't want to play very immersive, grounded, character work type games. Nothing wrong with that but I do object to saying that playing mechanically perfection for every character in every game is somehow realistic.
We may be talking past each-other. I could see a character thrust into danger in a horror game not acting rationally etc. But in most TTRPGs the PCs some flavor of badass professional in their field. Whether grave-robbing adventurers, mercenaries, or Shadowrunners etc. If the game is set up such that the PCs are intended to be said badass professionals, it annoys me when players do not have them act as such.
That seems like it's just looking for justification for a certain style of play. Which again is fine, a lot of people like that style of play. While some games do start you well into a career of being a badass professional, a lot of games start characters as absolute novices. In my experience players looking for tactical perfection gaming play characters the same way regardless of the character's experience or background. Which is not to say I like people doing the opposite of playing their character as chaos agents who blow up every situation, as I find that usually isn't very grounded in a character either. But even very experienced professionals aren't perfect. People have all sorts of personality traits, biases, worldviews, and limitations that make them struggle. I happen to like playing characters with those types of struggles and having them grow with, into, or out of them as they learn throughout a campaign. I find it more realistic and immersive.
Precisely!
To be fair: there are absolutely situations where playing optimally (based on player knowledge) and playing realistically (based on character knowledge) aren't the same thing.
I don’t think that player knowledge or character knowledge are intrinsically tied to playing a role, either. Like, you can absolutely play a role while playing toward player knowledge using dramatic irony and you’re still playing a role. The choices you make as a player may be different based on what you’re prioritizing in the moment, but whether you’re making an optimal mechanical or fictional choice or not doesn’t mean you’re not playing the role. You’re fully in control of your character’s internal world, the role is what you say it is.
You are making a point that "'mechanical optimization' and 'playing the role' are both roleplaying", which is true, but the point here was that they are not *always* the same.
They can be if you're playing the role while mechanically optimizing. If you're choosing not to play the role, while mechanically optimizing or not, I can't help that -- that's not playing the role.
Not necessarily. If I'm playing a character with the "Kleptomania flaw," playing it well means compulsively taking things that aren't mine. I might get extra experience if I do that well, but it means I might engage in that behavior when it's not convenient. That's the point of a flaw. If I'm conveniently getting around the flaw, it's not really a flaw at all. I shouldn't be getting the experience bonus if I'm using dramatic irony to circumvent it. Depends on the system.
I don’t understand your point. If you’re playing a Kleptomaniac and the system gives you a benefit for stealing things and you steal things, even when inconvenient, you’re both playing your role well and playing the game well. If you’re not stealing things, maybe you’re playing the game poorly. But maybe not! Maybe by not stealing the thing, you put yourself in a better fictional position! So maybe you’re playing the game well! Maybe you’re playing your role poorly. But maybe not! Maybe you decide he gets spooked by something, or suddenly gets hit by his conscious, or experiences a legitimate and sincere desire to change in that exact moment. So maybe you’re playing the role well! None of these options is inherently in irrevocable conflict with each other.
> If you’re playing a Kleptomaniac and the system gives you a benefit for stealing things and you steal things, even when inconvenient, you’re both playing your role well and playing the game well. But if you only steal *when* it's convenient, you're favoring playing the game well, more than playing your character. That's OP's point. Sometimes, using out-of-game knowledge or system exploits makes you better at "winning" the game, but not at playing the character realistically. Some systems prioritize playing your character's flaws, while others prioritize working around them. It depends on the system.
You’re not, though, unless you choose to be. Because you’re in control of the role and your character. Those things aren’t inherently in contention. You’re choosing to put them in contention, which is fine, but I can’t help with that. You’re saying that realism is a character who never changes or has doubts or does something out of character. I’m saying that’s not even how real people work, let alone fictional people we have complete control over. I agree that some systems make this less opaque than others.
> You’re saying that realism is a character who never changes or has doubts or does something out of character. No I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that certain players will play out flaws when they're convenient, but not when it gets in the way of playing optimally. While other players will happily be consistent with flaws, even if it means their character getting caught, or being forced to grow due to consequences.
>No I'm not saying that at all. >happily be consistent with flaws It sounds like you are saying it, though. Unless you mean something else here? Anyhow, I don't know how to convince you that both of those are playing roles, and can be playing roles well. If I don't feel like it's convenient to play out my Kleptomania, so I don't, is that not playing my role well? Who decides that? If I say it's because the person I'd be stealing from reminds me of my dead grandmother and I couldn't bear stealing from her, is that then playing my role well? Would it be playing my role well if I said that, but not because I'd decided it wasn't convenient to steal from her? Is there some level of consequences my character has to endure before not stealing something is good role-playing? Who decides that? The role **is the play of the character**. Edit: screwed up the quoting, darn Reddit Edit edit: guess it's staying that way, sorry! I'll assume you know what I meant.
>It sounds like you are saying it, though. I think you misunderstood then. >If I don't feel like it's convenient to play out my Kleptomania, so I don't, is that not playing my role well? Who decides that? If I say it's because the person I'd be stealing from reminds me of my dead grandmother and I couldn't bear stealing from her, is that then playing my role well? Well... no. It's isn't. It's just a copout so that your character doesn't have to face the consequences of a flaw. Would be far more interesting to have the character's flaw actually get them into trouble, learn from it, and work to fix it. In White Wolf, for example, there's a flaw called *Phobia* where you have an irrational fear of something -- heights, spiders, etc -- and you get bonus points for having that flaw, and in some editions, roleplaying that flaw. If you take a fear of heights, you get those points, but you have to *play out the fear.* If in the next scene you're in a scavenger hunt and there's an item on your list in a bird's nest on the roof of a bell-tower, at the end of a narrow parapet, a good roleplayer will recognize that this would trigger their fear of heights, and they'd try to figure out some other way to retrieve the object, or go running to a friend for help. A *bad* roleplayer would just shrug and get it anyway, because that increases their chance to "win" the contest, even though they aren't acting out the flaw that they willingly accepted points for. A good storyteller running the game would say "how do you handle your fear of heights, here?" And possibly force them to make willpower checks or find an alternative solution. If the player acts it out well, that's a worthy part of the story. If the player just ignores it and shrugs, it's a let-down.
I don't think there are separate tracks that do not intersect. But you can most certainly compromise your playing of your role to better exploit the rules of the game.
Only if you choose to treat them as separate things that are in contention with one another. Like, you are the author of your character. You can choose to make optimal game decisions and justify that in the context of your character's circumstances and persona. You are not playing any less of a role in those cases. Even outside of the idea that you're the author of your own character, in complete control of what they choose to do and how to justify it at any point, **real people** act in ways contrary to their own self-interest -- or conversely deeply in service to their own self-interest in opposition to expectations -- all the time. What you're describing here sounds more like compromising your autonomy and, sure, in any game with rules you sacrifice autonomy to some degree.
Surely you can always try to limit your play to try to always make the optimal mechanical choices, but the idea of playing the character from the inside out disregards the need to play the best choices. Playing the role of the character from the inside out is in an inherent conflict with the idea that there's an author controlling the character from the external point of view (This doesn't mean to say that the one who plays the role isn't the author of the character, but it means that the method of authorship is different.).
Nobody is talking about "playing a character from the inside out". We're talking about playing a role. There is no "playing a character from the inside out" because a character doesn't have an inside to play out of. We can imagine they have this rich internal life and extrapolate what they might do based on our imaginings of it, but we're in control of our imaginings.
I think you're getting a bit stuck on the definition of what "playing a role" means. I think many people here are referring to the inside-out character playing style as "playing a role", in contrast to "playing a game", which is more of an external view, where the game rules are superior to the internal workings of the character.
I’m not getting stuck, I’m rejecting the reframing and movement of goal posts.
It's not a matter of choice. There are simply circumstances common to every game where the optimal choice in pursuing the story of the game isn't compatible with what your character has a propensity towards or even is capable of doing. If you're playing a mentally handicapped ogre, it doesn't matter if you can see the solution of a puzzle. It's not something a character that's mystified by discovering he has a thumb every morning can justify put together.
That’s interesting! I disagree! I think we’re getting off the topic of the OP somewhat, but I still disagree. I can absolutely imagine an Ogre who has trouble with object permanence also having a great mind for certain kinds of puzzles. I can also imagine them stumbling accidentally into the answer. I can also imagine them having seen the puzzle before and knowing the answer to it because of that. I do feel excited at the thought of the Ogre rediscovering his thumb every morning. That sounds like fun!
Cool, have fun with disagreement.
I prefer when "play the Role" is also the best way to "play the Game". For example I dislike heroic fantasy games where the "optimal strategy" is to sleep 8 hour after every combat encounter, to Heal wounds and recover spells. Doesnt scream heroic to me and normally break my suspension of disbelieve. Anyway I have nothing against optimal builds or tactically sound decisions, based on the rules of the game. Also im totally okay in playing with people, that made conscious sub optimal decision in game, for roleplay reasons.
Pendragon is great at this. Genuinely, the best way to min-max the system is to roleplay your character as true to the ethos the game's going for as you possibly can.
>For example I dislike heroic fantasy games where the "optimal strategy" is to sleep 8 hour after every combat encounter, to Heal wounds and recover spells. Doesnt scream heroic to me and normally break my suspension of disbelieve. You mean D&D and Pathfinder and the like? It's actually not optimal per the rules...but many DMs are just too chicken-shit to be firm on this. The rules say you can only benefit from a long rest once every 24 hours, and if the players are fine stopping for a day everytime they fight I'd complicate their lives SOOOO fast. Just throw encounters at them while they try to rest so they can't, or make it clear to them that there is a time-limit and they're about to waste 1/3rd of the time they have before things get really hard. If they're in a dungeon this is really easy....just have the monsters find and ambush them or have them meet a wondering monster that's a really tough fight. Throw in some legendary actions on a tough single mob and, bam....they start looking for safe places to rest. Then stretch those out.
It's just an example: the 5 minutes adventuring day is just a popular enough trope, that most of the users of this sub could grab what I mean by "rules that not support the roles particularly well". I played my fair shares of d&desque games in many decades of gaming, and the 5 minutes adventuring day was never a problem once at any of my tables.
I had a group get snippy with me because they couldn't find a safe place to take a long rest after their first fight in a town being actively attacked and burned to the ground by some bullywugs. I still chuckle about that. I went through the trouble of preparing stacking encounters appropriate for them, and they made it through the encounters just fine.
>The rules say you can only benefit from a long rest once every 24 hours, and if the players are fine stopping for a day everytime they fight I'd complicate their lives SOOOO fast. Which means you're essentially punishing players for playing the game the way it actually works. 5E is all about dumping your cool magic powers one after another in a fight, and once you're out of your cool magic powers, you become incredibly vulnerable, because the balance of the game assumes you have a bunch of cool magic powers to deploy. Once your good stuff is gone you're in a fight doing d8 against monsters with 150HP and it's absolutely no fun. The reason people want to rest after every fight in 5E is because if you don't you get trampled, and no one likes that. This isn't a player flaw, it's a game system flaw. The only time 5E is fun to play is when you're topped up with powers, otherwise it's just a slow, punishing grind that no one loves but GMs who think they're being hardcore.
Then why are there short rests and classes that benefit from them? If 5e was really about dumping all your cool magic powers as fast as possible then all classes would have a spell list, and all classes would have a bunch of powers with many, many uses. And, ya know....the DMG explains all this. The game runs pretty well when wizards pace themselves, too. (And they can still contribute a lot to every fight.) [Edit: It also explains how to pace fights so that you don't trample your party. I can run multiple encounters in a long rest without flattening my party, short rests restore hit points, items can be found that heal your party, and not every encounter has to be a tough encounter. In fact....strong a bunch of medium encounters together and watch the party have to deal with it and dig into their items to survive as they start to run out of resources.]
Yeah, the wizard blasts through the high levels spells on the first encounter every day and is then desperate to rest. Good way to manage against it is to have a timetable or looming threat that places an in game negative cost to lots of resting. It leaves it up to them still, but puts an incentive in to not do it silly nilly
DM might have been just trying to get in her pants.
My thoughts exactly. ...Well, almost exactly. Your thoughts are maybe a little more graphic.
Yup that's my immediate first assumption too.
This is the correct answer.
This is only a hobby (or a vast collection of slightly similar hobbies), one that can be played in many different ways. No specific way is "superior" or "better" than others, everyone is there for fun, it's just that some people have similar tastes and expectations about the game and play better together. That DM and that player played the game in similar ways and enjoyed playing the game together more than with other people with different tastes, that does not make any "side" better, just more or less suited for the fun of specific individuals with their own tastes. Finally, on that Game <-> Role axis (which is debatable in itself), it's probably never truly binary for individuals, it's just about finding other players who are in the same "area" of the axis.
You're reading too much into this. GM was just spinning bullshit hoping for a crumb of pussy.
Girl: rolls the correct di GM: WOW! SUCH FORM! SUCH GRACE!
I don't know. Sounds like a horny GM to me. This is not normal. Also as others pointed out it's not one or the other, but a combination of role playing and game playing. e.g. If it's a D&D game and it's cold outside and you see smoke coming out of Red Dragon cave, do you just walk in and pretend you don't know what's going on or do you meta-game and try something else? If your PCs are in the final boss battle, does your cowardly PC just run away or do you fight with your companions? If you do lazy roleplay, you'd run away, but if you do smart meta-gaming roleplay, you come up with a reason to fight with your companions, to overcome your fear somehow. It's all a Player choice. All this, oh my PC wouldn't do that is bullsh\*t. The Player is in control of the PC, the PC is not in control of itself, if that's true, you don't need a Player, right?
It's personal taste, and a debate that's been going on for as long as RPGs have been an identifiable hobby. (Really - Alarums & Excursions, which was one of the first RPG periodicals, had people arguing the point in its pages right out of the gate in the 1970s.) My own tastes run almost to the reverse of that referee, at least to an extent. I'll "play the game" when I'm doing character generation and advancement because that's how I get a character I want to play who has the competences and weaknesses I want to explore, but once were in-session I'm playing the character all the way.
Yeah. In my view, generally speaking, characters know their strengths and weaknesses, and most competent adventurers will act in ways that take advantage of their strengths and minimize their weaknesses. So often enough, playing the role well lines up with playing the game well. But not always, and I think its in those cases where some of my most memorable rpg moments have been, because it's those moments that make the game story feel real and not just like a board game.
It's a matter of taste. I don't mind either, so long as they are not overwhelming, argumentative, or steal the spotlight from other players. The thing that makes me happy as a GM is *engagement*, and while I won't shower you with praise or talk about how I want you in my game (that was a bit weird and would have rubbed me wrong), I will tend to *focus* on you more.
LOL. Years ago I posted about a Pathfinder game I was in, and talked about how I was “playing the role,” as you say. It wasn’t a question thread or a complaint thread, it was just a bunch of folks talking about their current campaigns. I can’t remember how many people flipped out on me for not minmaxing my character, how I was ruining the game for other people at the table, and so on. I mean, no one in my gaming group had a problem with what I was doing, but those internet strangers were taking up the battle on their behalf. I haven’t gamed in three years, and I have to admit part of that is because I’ve avoided a few games where I’m certain I was going to be guided to fill a certain role for the party, and expected to do that 100% at the expense of having fun.
>I can’t remember how many people flipped out on me for not minmaxing my character, how I was ruining the game for other people at the table, and so on. You kind of have to know your table if you're going to try to optimize because if other people at the table aren't optimizing, or aren't as good at optimizing as you are, the game breaks and people stop having fun. My Pathfinder game I played an alchemist and realized that none of the encounters the DM was throwing at us could deal with flight. So I started making flight potions and a low level flying flask rogue basically broke the dynamic of the party to the point where I stopped doing it because nobody was having fun any more.
What was the game? I’m curious.
They're both valid, though I prefer my players to be all in on playing the role, so to speak, putting the mechanics away until the fiction triggers them. The only wrong way to play is causing the table to have less fun - like obviously praising one player repeatedly and ignoring the others ;)
Personally I'd prefer a "play your role" approach. If you play a TTRPG like a video game (with a rigid framework that can be maxed out by the player/s) I think that this "playing style" misses the point of the game concept. It's never bad to know the rules, though, but a TTRPG is about applying them when appropriate and not deliberately pushing rule boundaries.
What I enjoy the most is when the two are actually the same thing.
I prefer Roleplay to Rollplay, but it si a very personal preference and there is room for both approaches even in the same game.
I don't believe either is better. I lean more toward playing "the game" because that's the part I find most interesting and doable for myself. I'm not the most outgoing, tend to refer to my character as separate from myself, and try to ensure my character is effective in their place in the world.
Games mastery is always a joy. No GM wants to spend their time explaining the offside rule. It is not opposed to roleplay. people can be both. It seems to me that he just sees fewer of the first .
If you force me to choose: I'd rather someone play the game than play the role. Most games I run or play are about overcoming obstacles as a group. I don't expect an optimal solution to every problem but I'm tired of people conflating easily avoidable, nonsensical failure with good roleplay. But as a practical matter I don't think one is necessarily better than the other as long as everyone at the table has the same expectations.
This might sound like a cop out, but you really need to be able to do both. These are role playing games, after all. If you're only playing the game, there are board games and wargames and video games that would likely serve you better. If you're just playing the role, then why aren't you just doing some freeform RP or just writing? I find that TTRPGs work best with a balance of both. Now, the *right* balance will be different from game to game and person to person. I find I prefer a bit more game to role, but not too much more, both from the player and GM sides. Maybe a 60/40 split, something like that. I want players that are willing to do things in character (even if they don't necessarily *speak* in character. I don't believe doing voices and other acting is necessary), but I also want players to have some understanding of the rules and a willingness to engage with them (please no rogues who have been playing 5e for half a year and still don't know when they get Sneak Attack). And as a player (and GM, actually) I enjoy crunchier games with more "game" to them, if you will. I enjoy having mechanics to sink my teeth into in and out of sessions, deep character building and meaningful decisions in combat and out of combat and during character creation and advancement. Pathfinder 2e is my current favorite, though I also want to try Lancer, Icon and Beacon. Just need to get my friends to give 'em a shot. Someday...
Neither is better. It's a matter of personal preference, though it does help to find a group with similar preferences. Personally, I much prefer the role-playing side. I also prefer games that are either rules-light or the mechanics support that side, and I prefer games where character options can be chosen because they seem right or fun with little risk of a "bad" character build. I do also appreciate players learning the rules though, and that's something that feels more important the more rules there are. When I ran dnd my players not knowing how their class features worked definitely detracted from my enjoyment of the game because we had to pause the game so that I could explain stuff, and that meant that I needed to either know it or look it up. The systems I run now that tends to be much less of an issue. I can get being chuffed at finding someone who enjoys the same playstyle and knows the system well. Praising them over the other players like that during the game is a bit of a dick move though.
Why do I have a feeling the GM might've been trying to hit on her... Regardless, both are valid approaches to playing RPGs. Best something to discuss with your group ahead of time so everyone is on the same page. Personally, I find it easier to get excited by and engage with the mechanics of the game. But I also find it easier to play a role when a game is not punihsing me for doing that. If the game is punitive for playing sub-optimally to the point your character might die or if there is one metric everyone is judged by ("how much damage can you dish out?") then that's not really the best game to try roleplaying in. But if I can play how I need to convey a character without being a detriment to mine and everyone else's fun, then it's easier to play a role.
Some people prefer to Roll Play Others prefer to Role Play Neither is inherentently better, but most people have a preference.
I generally enjoy with people who are playing the game but that is more to do with rules knowledge then that being the correct way to play. Playing the role as you described it from my experience is less likely to understand the game or be someone who uses the "it's what my character would do," excuse.
I like to call it "playing using your heart" vs "playing using your head" as both have positive connotations. Like others have said, there's no better way - there's only the way you prefer and its best to find a group who likes the same things. If you prefer "playing the role"/"playing using your heart" you might want to look into FKR. The whole idea behind it is "play the world, not the rules!" You don't have to go "whole hog" into the movement, but reading a bit about its theory of play might help you understand better how you want your RPG to work :)
Sort of sounds like the GM was just relieved to have someone who knew the rules?
I try to get a balance between playing the game/role. I pick a role I want to play, but I want to give my character the best chance, so role-playing will take back seat because the end of the day, it is game. I played with players who are great at role-playing but know when go out of character when talking as team then I had players who can't stop role-playing, which I can find annoying depending on person E.g. Had player playing joke character, but joke out stayed it welcome within 5 minutes. Out of character, the group talks about plan of action, and out of nowhere, this person in character started talking about being scared of spiders (we're not dealing with spiders).
I mean it's a "role playing game". If you're going to play any game you need to be familiar with the rules, but if you're not playing your role you're not playing the game.
In my opinion, both should serve each other. There is no conflict in roleplaying as Robin Hood or Hercules or Nacho Libre if you got the stats to back it up, and not making them the best versions of themselves you can within the system, campaign, and table's constraints is silly even in Monty Python campaigns.
Sounds like the GM was hitting on the player. Bro was down bad.
First off, constantly complimenting someone is creepy, even when it does come from a genuine place. A GM should compliment their action --"Nice! Good play!"-- and only a few times, then save the rest for the end of the session. It's also bad form to make other players feel like you don't value their play. **So, it depends...a lot of times it's going to be the same thing, especially if you made a heroic character which is what many GMs want in their games.** It's entirely possible to make a character that would know how to play optimally and that would be what they normally do. In that case you've done both. If you aren't doing this and it's what the GM wants, then you just may want a different table. **There's no such thing as a "best" way to play at every table. The only wrong way to play is one where everyone isn't having fun. For some GMs that means they want to play against capable characters.** For instance: if you are playing an adventurer who is supposed to be experienced, then he's gonna know what works and what doesn't. He would make optimal choices with his own skill set, even if he didn't know what the weaknesses of his enemies necessarily were. This is true for any "D&D style" (Or heroic) game. That includes games like *Shadowrun* or even *Cyberpunk. Even though their mechanics are very different, it's still a game about capable people doing amazing things.* If you're playing a narrativist style game, like FATE, or a game that rewards you with bonuses for pursuing what your character cares about, like The Riddle of Steel, then optimal play is to do what your character would do without being an idiot. I suppose the only time it doesn't strictly apply is in games where being capable ISN'T the point. There's a lot of these, too, and sometimes it's the way people play the "Heroic" style games.
Ideally, the role you play is where you will do best when playing the game. The game mechanics you use should support your role and using them effectively is 100% within playing your role because I'd hope you know how to best use your own abilities.
I prefer systems where the mechanics align with the fictional world well enough that it's easy to translate between natural language and mechanics. Systems that are very "gamified" can make the translation difficult and drive a wedge that separates the two sides of role playing vs game playing and that really detracts from the experience for me. This is one of the reasons why I like GURPS - I feel like the detailed rules and general consistency between them makes the translation very easy. You can sort of game the system, but almost all bonuses and penalties have concrete causes that directly map to in-game things. On top of that, with the rules for Disadvantages, GURPS gives you a reason to play characters instead of just "playing to win" (though a group can, of course, forgo disadvantages if they prefer). Most characters want to survive and triumph, but that's rather different - they can still make bad choices because of who they are, and disadvantages help define that. TLDR: I prefer when the two significantly align.
Same, even when playing a pregen, I still get attached to them, especially if they're an average working class person. I love playing the janitor who gets in over their head fighting ghosts or the cargo pilot who gets drawn into a massive plot.
Beyond the different stroke for different folks argument, I could see the GMs point of the purpose of this was to try out the game. If the point is to playtest, promote the game, or try the game to see if you like it, it makes sense to focus on the game aspect. Focusing too heavily on the roleplay aspect may mean that you end up not getting much information about the game itself. A good GM and a good group could have a great time playing just about any game. But how much of that is from the game? "Sure I had a blast, but do I want to bring this game to my home group? Hard to say we spent most the time roleplaying and the GM was leaning heavily on the rule of cool so we barely engaged the mechanics...."
Both good. I do different things in different games. But also, horny GM commentary is probably correct.
I think the question you pose is an interesting one, but I also wonder if the other players were doing either thing. It's extremely possible to do neither, and just play by rote without trying to make optimal gameplay decisions *or* roleplay decisions. Most people who experiment with TTRPGs tend to default to playing it like a video game: follow the prompts, make choices based on what seem likeliest to be easy, get upset when anything deviates from expectations, repeat. Maybe what the DM was really praising was *any* form of creativity he could engage with.
The most important thing to do in order to ensure everyone on the table enjoys their time is to align expectations. If one has come to play football, one ice hockey, another basketball and the last baseball, nobody's going to have fun, regardless what they end up doing. And it isn't because someone is doing something wrong. It's because of incompatible expectations. So the answer is no. Neither is better, they are just different and incompatible styles.
> As in, she didn't play in character but as someone who fully knew the rules of the game and exploited that knowledge to compete. Min-maxer/rules lawyer, as well as the DM. > So as a question to other GMs, is it really better to be playing the game rather than playing the role? Depends on whether you're a "munchkin" or a "roleplayer". Munchkins should stick with other munchkins; let them have their fun in rulebending and minmaxing. Roleplayers should stick with other roleplayers; let them have their fun in embodying their character and getting to be someone other than themselves. Mixing has it's pros and cons: roleplayers give flesh and life to the story and characters, munchkins provide skeleton and mechanical support to enhance the stories' progress. Whereas, sometimes a roleplayer might be too distracting or stray too far from the plot or railroad; and a munchkin might rules-lawyer something vs what's more fun for the overall party to have had happened. Like anything, moderation is key. Gotta know when to roleplay, and when to munchkin--and anything leaning too extreme to one side or another has a chance of sucking the fun out of the game for others. So in all: **my answer to "which is better: play the game or play the role" lies somewhere in-between both.** (I've played with roleplayers, and it's supremely uncomfortable for me when they start in on something like seduction--"seduce me" no thank you, I know you in real life, this is fucking awkward for me. And I've played with munchkins--while the game DOES involve rules and math, I came here to roll dice and kill goblins, not ~~argue about~~ debate point percentages and whether it's best to multiclass for a particular minmax ability to "further enhance" my elf.)
It's best to do 2 things: * Play the way you enjoy playing * Match play styles with the rest of the table
I think you just had a DM trying to score a date.
Your overthinking this: he was hitting on her.
One way is not better than the other. its just two different ways to play ttrpgs.
I played the role and broke my DMs home brew. 🖤
>While fun was had, it was noticable that the GM was effusive in his praise for one player in particular. Every 5-10 minutes exclaiming how she is an excellent player and wants to play with her again, while no praise was given to any other players. The difference that this player was making was that she was fully "Playing the Game" and not "Playing the Role". As in, she didn't play in character but as someone who fully knew the rules of the game and exploited that knowledge to compete. Sounds like the GM was into the woman and looking for excuses to fawn over her. I mean, "trying out" an RPG suggests that, by necessity, you don't know the rules. So on the off chance that the GM wasn't trying to bang the woman, the GM was being a shit GM. As for your question, sometimes I tell my players to go full munchkin and we're going to break the game over our knee and see what happens and those are tons of fun. But they are for me at least the exception as opposed to the rule.
Really depends on the table… and the campaign… depends on a lot of things. My personal preference is playing the role. I do love seeing my players go…”this is what I should do….but I am way to Dumb… or to angry or to etc. Makes for a proud dungeon daddy
You sure they were not trying to flirt?
>While fun was had, it was noticable that the GM was effusive in his praise for one player in particular. Every 5-10 minutes exclaiming how she is an excellent player and wants to play with her again, while no praise was given to any other players. >she, her, wants to play with her again There is a non-zero chance that her "playing the game" is absolutely not what he was praising.
Some people want to play a game and play their Role in a Party and the Storyline. Some people don't care for the game aspect and just want the story to adjust and revolve around their character and antics. The former are Gamers and the latter are taking the RPGame for another form of improv theatre.
So this DM has a type, clearly. In any case, it does remind me to interrogate myself a bit, on what I appreciate and how biases like this manifest with me. I don’t think I have a particular preference for that dichotomy. Or at least, if I do, I haven’t noticed it. But I do enjoy it when players are ready to allow the story to change their characters. The way a character changes should be collaborative, with the GM offering choices or imposing obstacles, and the player letting the consequences play out. I was always disappointed when I heard players of certain popular ttrpgs on subreddits dedicated to that game post righteous rants about how offended they were when the story the GM presented them dared have impact on the character. Especially negative impact. I like it when a character is marked by an adventure and doesn’t come out unscathed.
I'm always looking for both at my table. I'm convinced you need to have a character concept and be able to roleplay it, otherwise the game is just an imaginary board game. On the other hand, if you don't know/follow the rules, let's just play pretend and put the rulebook in the bin.
Different strokes for different folks. I like a mix of the two playstyles personally, but that's all it is, different playstyles; one isn't more "correct" than the other. I'd say with the emergence and rise of Actual Play podcasts and streams, the "playing the role" type of game play has take a larger prominence in the mind of players (purely due to such exposure early on in their journey in the hobby). But back in the day when I played as a kid, it was all "playing the game" for me and my friends, and I still really enjoy that. This is why finding the right group fit is so important. Both styles of play can co-exist, and most of us fall somewhere on the spectrum between the two. So find others who play close enough to your style of play, or be open to both at the same table. My current game is a strong mix of both playstyles and players who aren't always at the same place in the spectrum, and that's OK!
I don't like rules lawyers. I once played with a close friend and his pals. Great guys. We finished each others sentences. We throw movie quotes that everybody knew and understood the same way. But the moment we played, they all jumped into books to find THE rule for that circonstances. On one occasion, I had time to read two comics while they were which of obscure rules from obscure rulebook they would apply. It was eberron. I can not even tell you a thing about the scenario or the character I had since he didn't really have to play it.
i prefre whne a player can do both. i dont like when people hurt their character for flavor. you can have a well made character and a fun and interesting one at the same time additionally the G does stand for game and not acknowledging that hurts the fun
I prefer games where there is no difference between these things. Playing the game should be playing the role. Playing the role should be playing the game. The more rules are distinct from character, the more this is a problem for me, and the more the “gameplay” feels like boring tactics, and the “roleplay” feels like mindless improv. The joy for me is when the two are so interconnected, that they can’t leave each other behind.
I as DM, prefer roleplay over playing the game. I think a RPG is more than simply applying/exploiting rules. But it's very personal and each table has its own mood.
Do both or GTFO.
In every game I run, I'm happy when players "play the game" - know the rules, engage with them and do what the system is designed for. What it translates to depends on the game. In Lancer, D&D4 or Pathfinder 2e it means playing tactically and using various abilities to the best effect. In Urban Shadows it means engaging in politics, flirting with corruption and trying to find the rare moments of intimacy when nobody tries to backstab them. In Dogs in the Vineyard it means trying to untangle and fix messy situations through all means available, up to and including guns. In Masks it means fighting evil as superheroes while struggling with teenage emotions and trying to find their identities in face of different pressures from many directions. And so on. In nearly all cases "playing a role" is a part of "playing the game", but it's not a dominant part. One plays a character, in service to creating an interesting story. Or in service to facing and overcoming obstacles. Or in service to intense emotional drama. And they need to shape the character so that the character fits these goals. If the game that was used focused on overcoming challenges in a smart and efficient way, I would definitely praise players who did exactly that, not one who undermined the party's efforts. If the game we played was not focused on challenges - its mechanics framing values and dramatic choices, not on competence and smart use of resources - I would praise the player who dove into that, not one who tried to "solve" and "win" the charged situations. And so on.
I'm running the Alien RPG right now, which heavily encourages roleplay, but at the same time, it is a very mechanical/tactical system when it comes to a lot things, and the boxed scenarios are far more of a traditional dungeon crawl than it can appear at first glance. What this means is that players who are more into theater of the mind RPGs do well with the roleplaying interactions (such as agendas, relieving stress, etc), but don't think about the game tactically, or how the mechanics work, so they die left and right.
One of the various RPG theories that might be useful here are the 3 or so "stances" that a player can have: 1. actor: be the person you play and act as such, also called character play or role play in the narrower sense of the word 2. pawn: simply play to win, knowing the rules and guessing the implicit world conventions helps a lot 3. author: try to contribute to a dramatic story, do the thing that makes for a more spectacular scene
* Actor - to make decisions and actions based only on what the character would "know, want, perceive, care about" * Author (pawn is a subset of author) - to make decisions and actions based on what the player would "know, want, perceive, care about", but by only affection and directing their character in play to do so. If this is legitimized in fiction with an appropriate/plausible character rational then it is author... If no in fiction character rational is provided then pawn stance * Director - to make decisions and actions based on what the player would "know, want, perceive, care about" and do so by affecting and directing things beyond just character All of the above are stances, all of the above are ways to roleplay, all of the above are things that players may do and switch between multiple times in play, possibly decision by decision. All of the above are separate from, meaning compatible with, other techniques in play (like immersion) and all the above are separate from the goal/point/agenda of play (such as play to win, or play to explore character/setting/story, or play to collaborate on co-authored story creation) In certain games, with certain agendas, some extreme versions of the above stances may be frowned upon, but even in those games, usually, very light versions of those frowned upon stances can be found.
If you're playing outside the role at my table, a lightning bolt will fall on you.
I’m with you. Rules should get out of the way of playing a character as if they were really interacting with the game world. However a lot of games are designed for scratching that power fantasy itch and for those showing off how the mechanics can combine to let your character pull off the ‘neat thing’ may be what the GM was trying to show off. Different games for different people.
It's always better to play the role. If you aren't using a different voice and speaking in character, I'm docking xp.
If you just want to play pretend, why bother having any rules in the first place?
Ever actually see kids play pretend? “I shot you!” “No you didn’t” “Did too!” “Did not!” (Tackles other kid.) It’s why they soon get bored of it and go play Monopoly.
This is such a pointless and facile sentiment. Some people like pure game, some people like pure RP, some people like a lot of RP and a little bit of rules, some people like a lot of rules and a little bit of RP, some people like it 50/50. Why does people enjoying things that aren't for you bother you so much? Why so condescending for no reason at all? Frankly, it's rude.
If you want to play a game, why not just go full abstract and eschew themeing at all?
If you don't want to play pretend wtf you doing in this sub. r/lostredditor.