Quote from: J ArcaneWhere in any of this thread did anyone state anything remotely resembling the conclusion you chose to jump to?

You mean I pushed some buttons to provoke some discussion?  Opps.  :pundit:

Quote from: Kyle AaronIt's the same as how rules for football can be designed to show the fitness and agility of fit and agile players - but no rules can make them fit and agile. They have to develop their abilities themselves. And in a casual hobby, very few people will make the effort, so we're left with their inborn talent.

The rules of football do more than just showcase the fitness and agility of the players, they basically force players to have fitness and agility in order to be truly successful.  For example, the dimensions of the field pretty much mean there will be plenty of running involved.  So where are the equivalent RPG rules for this sort of thing?  

I think the difficulty with roleplaying is that there are no established guidelines for what constitutes a "successful" session.  So with football, it's pretty clear what a player needs to do in order to be successful, but with roleplayers there's no such clarity.  Which is probably why there are so many casual gamers.  They can turn up, do their thing and leave and never really think about whether they are actually any good at it.

Going back to football, there are a number of well established training drills to help players improve their strength, speed and so forth.  Is it possible to have an equivalent in RPGs?  

QuoteHell, I know a gamer who has a whole group waiting for him to run a game, and he doesn't have any other gaming going on, but he still can't get his shit together to run the game.

subtle :rolleyes:

You'll be happy to know that I'm currently distracted by much more important things... building up my stocks of homebrew!  I am slowly coming to the conclusion that roleplaying and beer go very well together.

Quote from: Old GeezerAlso, as Kyle hinted at, there's a LOT of rhetoric online about needing to 'convert' the casual gamer.

I'm tired of the idea that roleplaying is a religious experience and we need to convert the non-gaming heathens.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkThe rules of football do more than just showcase the fitness and agility of the players, they basically force players to have fitness and agility in order to be truly successful.  For example, the dimensions of the field pretty much mean there will be plenty of running involved.  So where are the equivalent RPG rules for this sort of thing?  

There are lots of them. As Old Geezer said, the completely casual gamer and the dedicated amateur, there are games one might have fun in but the other won't.

For example, FATE 2.0 is a game whose mechanics focus on roleplaying. And in our games, you've seen that the players who enjoy it are those who enjoy roleplaying, the dedicated amateurs. The casual gamers just don't get it. "Um, Aspects? I'll be Strong and Agile." That's a game in which the players have to have good roleplaying skills for it to be truly successful, otherwise it just falls flat. Whereas something lke RuneQuest works well whether the players are thespian geniuses or morons.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkI think the difficulty with roleplaying is that there are no established guidelines for what constitutes a "successful" session.

Sure there are. It was successful if it was two or more of "fun", "interesting" and "fulfilling." If it was one or none of those, it was a flop. Now, those are not written down in any rpg I know of, but that's because they're instinctive for most. When it's one or none of fun/interesting/fulfilling, you find your fellow players drifting off.

Now, how to make it fun, interesting and fulfilling, there are no established guidelines for that because people vary so much in what they like. That's why you get books like Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering, where he tries to lay out, "well, people like different stuff, but you can categorise them into these different things they like, and then once you know what they want, you can give it to them."

Quote from: Tyberious FunkSo with football, it's pretty clear what a player needs to do in order to be successful, but with roleplayers there's no such clarity.  Which is probably why there are so many casual gamers.  They can turn up, do their thing and leave and never really think about whether they are actually any good at it.

I don't see why having some objective measure of overall roleplaying ability would help in any way. Are you saying that there should be no social football clubs, where people who know they're useless at it play and have fun anyway? I assume not - I am assume you'd say that people should play with those of a similar ability, or slightly greater ability to challenge themselves. In football, the teams themselves sort out the selection of those who are able and those who aren't. If you're really good, you probably won't be happy in that useless social team - you'll go looking for a more talented and able team. Likewise, if you're a good roleplayer, you won't stick around in some game group where the players say, "wake me when it's time to roll for combat."

Quote from: Tyberious FunkGoing back to football, there are a number of well established training drills to help players improve their strength, speed and so forth.  Is it possible to have an equivalent in RPGs?  

I don't really see how. It's because we don't have that "professional" level in the thing. Football's training drills didn't come from the Monash Monday Melons, they came from Sydney FC or wherever.

However, you can improve your roleplaying ability by practice with those who are better than you, as many social chess or scrabble players do with those hobbies. You have to choose the right people for that, though. If you go to the Monash Monday Melons and talk about getting better at football, a good number of them will say, "why are you trying to ruin our fun?" They don't want to get better, they just want to have fun today. Same with the groups of casual roleplayers.

I'm having a bit of experience about this myself at the moment, both as a student and a teacher, so to speak. I'm roleplaying in a group with someone more thespy than me, he's had his character fix on mine, and so each session demands extra effort for me. I'm there planning ambushes and his character's talking to mine about, "how do you handle the blood on your hands?" and so on. I'm playing with a better roleplayer than me, and learning from him.

On the other hand I have a gamer friend coming around tonight specifically because he wants me to - in his words - teach him how to design a campaign and GM. Now, I am not a masterful GM, but I know more about it than him so again that's like chess or football - to improve, you just have to play with someone better than you, they don't have to be awesome, just a bit better than you to challenge you and make you think.

So on the one hand I'm playing in a game where I'm being challenged to be better, and on the other hand I've had someone ask to come and talk to me so he can be challenged and get better. This learning is happening. It's not "drills", it's just playing or talking with people who are better than you. It's what I've always said, that rpgs have an informal apprenticeship system, people are brought into them by and learn to be better from other gamers.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkYou'll be happy to know that I'm currently distracted by much more important things... building up my stocks of homebrew!  I am slowly coming to the conclusion that roleplaying and beer go very well together.

The group's waiting for you. You know me, you want a group, I can get you one within a fortnight. In the rpg group free market, whether you keep that group is up to you and your GMing

Quote from: Tyberious FunkI am slowly coming to the conclusion that roleplaying and beer go very well together.

I'm Old Geezer, and I approve this message!

Quote from: Old GeezerI'm Old Geezer, and I approve this message!

Seconded!

Quote from: Tyberious FunkI'm the same guy... a little bit more experienced from when I first started playing D&D almost 20 years ago... but fundamentally the same guy. Is experience the only thing different? Or do the different mechanics allow me... or should I say, encourage me, to make more memorable characters?

What I think you're struggling with is the same thing I've been struggling with.  What parts of my game are inspiring creation and what parts are just mechanical or setting fluff?  What parts are encouraging or discouraging role development and what can I do to try inspire players to create a role for their character.  Sometimes mechanics can assist or get in the way of that but they don't change that goal.  

Basic D&D is a good example of this.  It provides enough framework to encourage this in play.  Oddly enough, there are enough verbal, visual, setting and mechanical elements that provide a shared cornerstone for the players to identify with.  What I've experienced is that those tropes have pushed me and other players to our creative limits off that shared cornerstone.  We're still getting a lot of the same things in play even if the mechanics or setting changes.  The easy way is to try something else but i've been experimenting with updating the cornerstone so that once again it is intuitively familiar yet undefined in the players imaginations.  I don't know if my assumption is correct but the exploration of the idea has definitely taught me a lot about what elements encourage that for me.  I know I want this role of characters and setting to develop in play not before or after even if it is something I enjoy as a player sitting by myself.  If that sort of development is happening outside of the group it has the potential to clash because the other players are not given a chance to identify with it.  That includes setting and characters.

First off, Mr. T Funk, go right ahead an push buttons.  IMO, that opens the door to emotional discussion, debate, and even some choice name-calling.  I try to leave myself out of the name calling parts, but it is to be expected when other people, just as passionate, take an oppossing view...or worse yet, have their points taken different than their intentions.

For myself, I find that there are mainly two extremes to ROLE-playing as far as the rules go.  There are either no rules to engender it in the game, or the game has taken every attempt at roleplaying and turned it into a roll; hence the expression roll-playing.

Both of these absolutes can be argued ad nauseum by either side....my opinion is that both work to an extent, depending upon your type of game, but it is not the system that makes roleplaying as much as it is the atmosphere.

However, I do find that the disclusion of roleplaying mechanics tends to bring foster more role playing than a die roll.  If one has to simply roll a die (or some dice) to be diplomatic, or intimidating, there is no real need for the player to play the role, they simply cast the dice.  this also sometimes has a sort of "reverse discrimination" effect where those that are truly roleplayers are handicapped, or penalized for their great in-cahracter play by having to cast the dice.

I feel, that rather than dictate the focus of playing the role through stated rules or arbitrary rolls, that a game system should erward those that play well, and encourage the more adept and experienced players in helping htose that are considered not-real-good roleplayers.

It is very difficult for a system to do this, but it is much easier to foster within a group.  

A lot of this responsibility will fall to the GM.  If the player simoply states that they "use diplomacy to attempt to persuade the king to grant them an award of arms", that is not enough.

the GM should counter with something like: "That's very interesting and a great idea.  Now, exactly how would Brunar the Barbarian do this?"

Depending upon the answer the player will eventually speak OOC about the details.  After being smiled upon and naodded to, the GM than states something like: " Now say it just like you think Brunar would."

Roleplaying ensues.

At my game tables, we used to have a "floater" token go about the table.  I (the GM) would hold it until somebody did a fine batch of roleplaying.  (The token can be anything, but it must be small and something fun, and hopefull silly.  We got great mileage out of rubber dragon that was designed to sit on one's shoulder)

When the first great bought of reolpaying would come, I would hand out the floater to the person that just did a great deed of roleplaying.   Eventually, everyone started a ritual where we all stood up and clapped.  When the player holding the floater saw another great bought of roleplaying they would turn over the floater to the other player (and receive a poker chip), pointing out exactly why this a good bit of roleplaying on the part of the recipient.  

Very soon, the casual gamers got into playing the role more than rolling the dice, and it wasn't long before everyone was attempting to outdo each other in playing the role.

Of course, the fact the the poker chips meant a bonus to the player in question edified this.  

I think by choosing your ganme, or your house rules, to promote good roleplaying will foster an environment for good roleplaying.  And yes, certain exceptions can be made for those that are not lithe of tongue, nor broad of vocabulary; but still, playing the role is what roleplaying is about, isn;t it?