I think they do facilitate roleplay because they make roleplaying part of the game.

One problem with RPG is that if you want anything other than a group of paranoid special forces is the players need to do things that are bad tactically.  Lets say there's a zombie movie and the scared teenage girl opens the door to let her boyfriend in, breaching the defenses.  The expereinced 'skilled' gamer would never do this.  Why risk all the characters for some NPC?  It makes sense.

But - the girl letting her zombie boyfriend into the bunker is something we may *want* to happen.  Its the kind of thing that happens in a zombie movie, and the whole reason we're playing a zombie game is we thing zombie movies are awesome.

What mechanics like this do is let the players engage in non-tactical behavior while still playing the game.  She lets her boyfriend in, convincing herself that he's not really a zombie.  The player gets some metagame points for doing something that is in-character, yet tactically unsound.  And in the ensuing fight she can use these to help overcome the problems.  It makes all this drama and narrative stuff part of the game, just as much as hit points and armor classes.

Its why we drama-craving story-whores like them so much.  Could they do it anyway?  Sure, but they'd always be considering the risk/reward.  Mechanics like this just serve to balance the equation out a bit.

Quote from: RPGPundit;350790Well, don't "throw it back at me"...

Not what I wrote, but, okay.

QuoteI'm copying a statement I read elsewhere.

Which I couldn't tell from the original post, but I've since gathered from others'.  I figured you were gunning at FATE and/or Halfjack again.

Regardless, I generally like aspect or personality mechanics, though, specifically, I'm not too enamored with their implementation in FATE.  And, in a broader sense related to the topic, I've seen virtually every kind of mechanic used as a crutch to compensate for bad roleplaying.  However, that's arguably what some rules and mechanics are there to do -- make playing the game easier and more accessible to less skilled players.

!i!

For the record, Aspects - as found in Spirit of the Century - can't provide "A crutch" for people that "don't know how to roleplay" because someone who doesn't know how to roleplay isn't going to think up near as many creative ways to get the mechanical benefits one gets for their character when they use them in play.

And that's what aspects are. They are additional character tools, set up to add depth to how you want your character defined. Aspects benefit the character just like skills, feats, stunts, stats, or what have you.

While GMs or other players can tag them, I've found that this only adds to the roleplaying opportunities and situational game experiences that people can experience and enjoy.

Far from being a "crutch," aspects are more like a reliable precision tool that sings in the hands of an experienced craftsman.

I like Maddman's example about non-tactical behavior very much.

Aspects are just like attributes and ads/disads. They are just another way of doing things.

In our Starblazer game they're just a convenient shorthand for things we've been doing in RPGs for the last fifteen years or so. So no. The mechanics just make it easier to adjudicate an appropriate bonus.

Also, what Silverlion and PaladinCA said.

I don't know that they're a "crutch", but I think the idea that aspects aid roleplaying has been vastly overblown.  

Take the zombie-movie example...

If the "skilled gamer" is going for the tactical advantage at the expense of roleplaying, he's metagaming.

If the "skilled storygamer" is playing his character expecting to get some system benefit out of actually playing his character, it's metagaming.

A "skilled roleplayer" would realize her character isn't a zombie-killing expert and faced with the situation of seeing her boyfriend at the door would probably let him in.

You don't need mechanics for that, never have, never will.  

Story metagaming is great way to get a gamist player to roleplay for points, but in the end the training wheels have to come off or the munchkin point-whore is just going to be a story point-whore.

I do have fun playing and running Fate-based games, like Starblazer, etc, but it's always in a pulp-fashion, or in one or two shots.  I couldn't see running a long-term campaign with one of those systems.  Too much frosting, not enough cake. (Well, ok, maybe with Starblazer.)

Metagaming is not a bad thing.

Quote from: Maddman;350840Metagaming is not a bad thing.

True enough.  It's like saying that writing with an outline is a bad thing.  You know, if we were allowed to use literary analogies freely in these forums.

!i!

Quote from: Maddman;350840Metagaming is not a bad thing.

Quote from: Ian Absentia;350867True enough.  It's like saying that writing with an outline is a bad thing.  You know, if we were allowed to use literary analogies freely in these forums.

!i!

Right there you struck the core of it.  Are you writing or are you roleplaying?  Are you playing a role or are you consciously creating a story in your head?

If your goal is to write or tell a good story, then yes, tools like outlines definitely help.  If that's what you want out of a game, then metagaming elements certainly aren't bad.

If, on the other hand, your goal is to play a particular role, as if you were the character himself, and find out after its all over that the retelling of what happened makes for a helluva story, then yeah, I think metagaming does get in the way of that.

In the end what it comes down to is, roleplaying is too general a term anymore.

What I call roleplaying, you'd probably call "method-acting" or "immersing" or something.

What you call roleplaying I'd call "interactive-storytelling" or "story-metagaming"

All RPGs create a story.  You might not care about the quality of that story, but I do, and therefore like games that encourage and reinforce players making for a good story.

Note that for these purposes "We went down into the dungeon and fought six orcs and I found a magic ax.  The my dwarf fell into a pit and died" is a story.  It is a series of imaginary events, which is the same definition of a story.  I'm not a railroader, there's no particular story in mind ahead of time.  I just want to see one created from the combination of the game rules, the conflicts I set up, and the actions and decisions of my players.

The thing that makes these interesting is that the players don't have to go for them.  I recall a Buffy game where a PC's girlfriend had been turned into a vampire.  I offered him several Drama Points if he would find himself unable to stake her.  He thought for a second and turned it down, declaring that she's gone and this thing is just using her body.  But it made it into a tactical as well as a narrative choice, which I find more interesting.

Personally, I find saying that 'these aren't really RPGs' which is where you seem to be going, to be offensive and full of one-true-wayism.  I understand that some folks don't pay a bit of attention to the metagame and just play in the sandbox.  Cool, not my thing but whatever floats your boat.

QuoteAre you playing a role or are you consciously creating a story in your head?

These are not mutually exclusive choices.  To me, that someone can be playing a role, considering what would make for a good story, and what would benefit you game mechanically at the same time is what makes this hobby so interesting.  And metagame mechanics can serve any of those agendas.  The person playing a role will have that role better defined, and not punished for doing what is right by the character.  The one wanting a good story has ways of introducing conflicts and problems that will be fun to sort out.  And the one who likes the game mechanics have another resource to manage, and don't get all pissy when Mr Play My Role or Mr Introduce Drama let the zombies in or whatever.

But again, I don't believe most people fall into one camp or the other, but enjoy the interaction of these and other elements.  It really my biggest criticism of GNS theory.

Quote from: Ian Absentia;350867You know, if we were allowed to use literary analogies freely in these forums.

!i!

We're not?

Quote from: Maddman;350903All RPGs create a story.

True enough.

Quote from: Maddman;350903You might not care about the quality of that story, but I do, and therefore like games that encourage and reinforce players making for a good story..snip..I'm not a railroader, there's no particular story in mind ahead of time.  I just want to see one created from the combination of the game rules, the conflicts I set up, and the actions and decisions of my players.

You accuse me later of one-true-wayism, but here is where you give off some of it yourself.  I'll be perfectly willing to agree that you can use metagaming tools to create a powerful story if you're willing to agree that I could create just as powerful a story without them (and in fact, may have been doing so for decades).

Quote from: Maddman;350903The thing that makes these interesting is that the players don't have to go for them..snip..But it made it into a tactical as well as a narrative choice, which I find more interesting.

I don't.  You would find the lack of such strategic metagaming less interesting, I find the inclusion of such strategic metagaming less interesting.  YMMV.

Quote from: Maddman;350903Personally, I find saying that 'these aren't really RPGs' which is where you seem to be going, to be offensive and full of one-true-wayism.

I wasn't really trying to do that, but rather get the point across that roleplaying as a term has outlived its usefulness when discussions get theoretical.  Most of the time, it's fine to just say "rhino".  In a biological discussion however, the generality of the term will quickly be discarded as it is not specific enough.  That's kind of what has happened to roleplaying.  

If you ask if Aspects help or hinder roleplaying, it kind of depends on what you mean by the term doesn't it?  I'm not saying that this includes you, but I have noticed a tendency of "storygamers".  It seems that on one hand, because they like metagaming tools specifically designed to improve story, they believe that means that their games tell more powerful stories.  On the other hand, they are completely unwilling to consider that since they are concerned more for story than immersion that the depth of their roleplaying may suffer as a result.

If I'm willing to admit that because your focus is on the story, you may be telling better stories, would you be willing to admit that because I focus on the roleplay, I may be roleplaying better?

Quote from: Maddman;350903I understand that some folks don't pay a bit of attention to the metagame and just play in the sandbox.  Cool, not my thing but whatever floats your boat.

Likewise.

Quote from: Maddman;350903The person playing a role will have that role better defined

Again, only if you like that level of metagaming.  Most games with aspects, tags, whatever you want to call them generally play pretty flat when people aren't fired up about using them.

Quote from: Maddman;350903But again, I don't believe most people fall into one camp or the other, but enjoy the interaction of these and other elements.  It really my biggest criticism of GNS theory.

Agreed.

Quote from: Simlasa;350725I'm not totally sure what they are, but by the sound of it I don't think I like 'em... sounds like another one of things to 'facilitate roleplaying' but in my experience ends up getting in the way.
My character sheets always have some descriptor words for me to focus on... but it sounds like this 'aspects' thing would turn those words into actual mechanical entities, and I don't see why I'd want that.

Easy peasy.  Don't give them mechanical benefits.  

Quote from: RPGPundit;350689What's your opinion on this question. Is that a fair accusation? Do aspects (as in the kind of mechanics you see in games like Starblazer Adventures or Over the Edge, among other games) enhance the depth of a character and provide mechanical benefits to roleplaying, or are they an artificial crutch that get in the way of effective roleplaying of a character?

I don't see much resembling aspects in OTE other that user defined traits.

I can stomach Aspects (a la FATE) because they are much easier to balance. OTE's user defined traits, on the other hand, I cannot abide. Nor have I seen it elicit roleplaying out of players the way I do FATE Aspects.

Anyways: if Aspects (a la FATE) are a crutch, I know a lot of people with roleplaying injuries that need it. Because I've seen it get roleplaying involvement out of players the way few other mechanics have.

Some players don't need aspects, and some can't seem to wrap their head around them. But overall, I find that most players get something out of them.