Quote from: hedgehobbit;1102925When DMs say, "how do I get my players to role-play", this is, more often than not, them saying, "how do I get my players invested in my game world and metaplot" rather than "how do I get my characters to have complex motivations." At least IME.

I want the players to play a character who is in and of the game world they are in. That is seldom a hero they saw in a recent movie or TV show. And it's also not just the player, but better looking and with pointy ears or shorter, stronger, fatter, and more bearded.

A couple of things that came to mind as I watched the video.

1) It's all well and good that he defined his terms for the sake of clarity. But I'm not sure how well his definition holds up to how the terms are used. I observed a long time ago and over the years that the term "roleplaying" in Roleplaying games is over-loaded, much like D&D's use of the word "level" for four entirely different things.

One of the ways I've observed the word "roleplaying" is used in RPGs is specifically to mean character interaction. As opposed to puzzle-solving, or combat, etc. "Roleplaying" is just the name given to character interaction within an RPG and isn't necessarily to say (or suggest anyone means) that this is what an RPG ought to be about. I suppose within this sort of activity in an RPG is something of a hierarchy. With third-person description of your character being base level, first-person speaking in character being the next level, and doing voices while you speak in character being at the top.

I suppose you could say the opposite extreme is another definition of "roleplaying" which I guess comes from the computer game genre. And that simply defines the genre as things where characters have stats that are displayed on a character sheet. The original Wizardry game, which I love, really doesn't have any roleplaying in it. But it's considered an RPG because you've got characters with race, class, level, several attributes, hit points, you have equipment, and so forth. Matt seems to call this 0-dimensional characters. But like the previous definition of roleplaying I mentioned, it's really an activity in itself and I don't feel it's really accurate to place it up a roleplaying continuum or hierarchy.

2) I have my own ideas of what a 3-dimensional character is, and whether that's even the pinnacle of achievement. Maybe it's a function of my DMing style. Or my understanding of the real world. I try to bring some of that complexity into the RPG when I run a game. At it's lowest level, you do kind of want to min-max, play smart, and just be real good at survival and achievement of goals. That is the lowest level, but you don't get to skip it. Differences in character personality, even though they may seem arbitrary, serve a purpose. If you believe the whole evolution thing, real world people wouldn't vary so dramatically in personality unless the different personalities had some evolutionary advantage.

It's obvious how the cautious and prudent type would have a survival advantage. The brash, risk-taking type, however, makes sense in the Braveheart sort of way where everyone's going to die--this is the type that truly "lives" in the sense that they're willing to take bigger risks and so can achieve whole new echelons--including achievements that then enhance safety and security above and beyond what the prudent character could achieve. I have legit seen many RPGers on forums over the years say things like, "Well, if we were really role-playing realistically, no one would enter a dungeon. It would be against their survival interests." But in a world of death and disease and marauding orcs and dragons, it's not obvious that going out and getting a bunch of gold (not to mention levels) and being able to build a stronghold and gain a military force at your disposal is a more risky strategy afterall.

So the next level, beyond once you've learned to survive and use your stats effectively is to break the patterns, go off the rails of mathematical optimization with an eye on the bigger picture. And this in part comes from having a distinct character personality. Matt might term this the 1-dimensional character.

What he terms the 3-dimensional character, then, is one who has experienced that, being this one way has it's benefits but has serious blind spots and drawbacks. And so you have to ascend that to be this other way. But the other way has its drawbacks and weaknesses, too. So the realized character has these multiple dimensions. And this can lead to a lot of internal conflict when figuring out which way to go. I just don't think that is the highest tier of play. In practice, when I've seen gamers get to this level, it just leads to a whole lot of indecision in play that slows the game to a crawl and really makes for a less fun game.

The next tier, then, is the one that despite these 3-dimensional complexities, is able to be decisive, leaving (or at least appearing to leave) behind the internal conflict of the 3-dimensional character. This would be the hero of the highest caliber. But given the complexities, it's not like there's a set of instructions one can give for playing on this level. It requires a grounding in the lowest tiers of play. So it's not like you can say "I'm a role-player of this great paragon level. I can create fully realized 3 dimensional heroic characters, and play them exactly right so that they have depth without becoming indecisive and killing the game." You almost have to learn and develop each character through the school of hard knocks. Beginning as a 0 dimensional character and working your way up, learning the practical lessons at each step of the way. Perhaps more experienced gamers can even begin with 1-dimensional characters with a pinky toe already dipped into 3-dimensional status. But it's not a fully realized character without some fine-tuning from extensive actual play and being put in different situations.

I disagree with Colville that there is necessarily any value in a player playing a PC different from themselves, as opposed to the player inhabiting the character. Some of the greatest characters IMCs were very much that player's perspective on things, but as a hero in a fantasy world. That goes for many fictional characters too:

Conan = RE Howard
Frodo = Tolkien
Elric = Moorcock
Luke Skywalker = George Lucas

These are the kind of characters who transcend the fiction and become mythic. IMCs this would be characters like Hakeem the Destroyer (Chris) and Lirael of Loudwater (Kimberly).

Quote from: S'mon;1104073I disagree with Colville that there is necessarily any value in a player playing a PC different from themselves, as opposed to the player inhabiting the character. Some of the greatest characters IMCs were very much that player's perspective on things, but as a hero in a fantasy world.

I agree as well. I play mostly with my own kids and their friends now and they really fall into the game as a fantasy; what we would call immersion. Seeing it from their perspective, I can see the huge limits to playing a game where you're primary motivation is deciding what your character does or feels. It's another level of separation between the player and the game world.

This is doubly true in a horror game. You don't want the players trying to decide if their character is scared. You want to scare the players themselves.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1104236You want to scare the players themselves.

Absolutely.  Everything I do at the table is aimed at stirring the players.  I just don't care about the characters in comparison; the goal is always to invoke involuntary reactions in the players: laughter, horror, tension, greed, curiosity - what have you.

Players faithfully proxying another personality is so far down the list of goals I have for my games as to be a "whatever; if it floats your boat".  Kind of like getting a primo parking space before a concert or something - great if it happens but not a goal.