Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2015 21:41:38 GMT -8
A game in which players take on the roles of imaginary characters... That's my definition of a roleplaying game. It's a game in which the players take on the roles of imaginary characters. It is possible roleplay in games that aren't intended to be roleplaying games, just as it is possible to not roleplay in games that are intended to be roleplaying games. But that's besides the point. Wonderful. I'm glad we're all in agreement, at least this far. I would much rather say that Simulationist systems are highly conducive to role-playing in a way that Narrative systems are not. My point stands. It is much easier (for me) to take on the role of an imaginary character, if that character inhabits a world which follows knowable (to the character) rules of internal causality rather than unknowable rules of narrative causality. That the character can do this is one way that Simulationist games are conducive to role-playing, in which Narrative systems are not conducive to role-playing. I'm not saying that this one merit is the be-all and end-all of all role-playing everywhere, but it is one thing about Simulationist systems that is very important to me - important enough that I require it of any RPG in order for me to consider it playable, and important enough that I think it warrants distinction between systems which exhibit this merit and ones which do not. There are other merits, though. There are ways in which, for example, FATE is more conducive to role-playing than Pathfinder is. For one, you spend less time looking up obscure rule interactions with FATE than you do with Pathfinder, so you get to spend more time actually (role-)playing. For another, breaking that play-time up into actual minutes and seconds, you spend far more of the game actually inhabiting the character and making decisions with FATE, where Pathfinder spends more time counting modifiers and applying dice math. So there are ways that a Narrative system might be more conducive to role-playing than a Simulationist one, if (for example) you prioritize speed of play and mechanical simplicity above the need for the characters to inhabit a knowable causal reality free of narrative influence.
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Oct 5, 2015 23:18:13 GMT -8
My point stands. It is much easier (for me) to take on the role of an imaginary character, if that character inhabits a world which follows knowable (to the character) rules of internal causality rather than unknowable rules of narrative causality. That the character can do this is one way that Simulationist games are conducive to role-playing, in which Narrative systems are not conducive to role-playing. I don't really see how these things are mutually exclusive, as you seem to be implying, but I'm rather tired of arguing this point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2015 0:46:42 GMT -8
There. Fixed that for you. So you prefer simulationist games. That's fine. Fate is not that, so you won't like it. I understand, and it's cool. Different people like different things, and no one is trying to make you like Fate. Let's all just move on. If you have an alternate definition of role-playing, then let's hear it. As far as I can tell, nobody is arguing that "make decisions from your character's perspective" is a bad definition. I don't see how my original statement should not hold under that. Give a different definition of role-playing, which supports Narrative focus instead of Simulation. I'm honestly trying to understand the opposing perspective here. The issue isn't with your definition of role-playing but the way you keep going on about it as if you've defined the purest form of role-playing. I doubt it's your intent but you come across as saying "this is THE definition and I'm the only one that really meets it." On that note I'd argue that your definition doesn't support simulation either, you still need to drop out of character to deal with the rules stimulating the world and thus are no longer role-playing. By your definition I'd say the only true way to role-play would be completely freeform with no rules at all. Oh, but I forgot the g in RPG. Game. Right then, guess that allows for some rules and out of character considerations, especially as it never states how long we should spend dealing with either part.
|
|
|
Post by shadrack on Oct 6, 2015 6:04:28 GMT -8
This is your perception. If I offer a compel, I would not classify the player as good or bad based on their acceptance or rejection of said compel. I might ask for their character's interpretation of the situation, but that's for me to gain increased understanding of the character. Think of it as a mechanical system, in a vacuum. The character is performing a certain action, or is put into a certain situation, and the GM compels a negative aspect. Unless you actively do something to stop it - unless you actively spend a resource to prevent that thing from happening - this is what's going to happen. The natural state of the system, without any external force applied, is for that thing to happen. Action, rather than in-action, is where the momentum is directed. But in any case, I yield on this point, since we could restrict the usage of compels to only those situations where the character would act either way depending on... something where it would make sense. It could be played that way. So that shouldn't be a case of good RP vs bad RP. I'm going to comment on some of your direct statements, but I'll be honest. I grow tired of this for several reasons, the main one is that you don't seem to have any desire to play in a FATE game, so I really don't see the point in continuing. let us remove the word 'negative', any aspect can be compelled. There must be action. The player must actively engage with the GM regarding the compel (negotiation). The player must actively decide whether to accept or reject the compel. The player must then have the character act in accordance with the decision made. When the compel is offered it's a full-stop, until the compel is resolved. aside: I am curious what you're trying to gain from these discussions.
|
|
|
Post by shadrack on Oct 6, 2015 6:07:38 GMT -8
Vampire has willpower, ghostbusters has brownie points... All of these systems do address the question with a rules mechanic. including FATE => negotiate the compel, and choose to accept it or reject it. Just so you know, you will never convince anyone to take FATE seriously if you try to draw favorable comparisons with Ghostbusters, given how the latter is notorious for being a (poorly-designed) silly joke game. It may seem like I'm critiquing FATE, for the way it tries to model narrative causality, but I still respect it for treating the subject somewhat seriously. I may not like what the rules are, or the goal to which those roles are directed, but I respect that it manages to accomplish what it's trying to do. Oh, I'm not trying to convince you to take FATE seriously. I'm just trying to clear up what I see as misinformation spewing. Just another game with a mechanical method to address the narrative. Jeesh, did someone step on your Ecto-1?
|
|
|
Post by shadrack on Oct 6, 2015 6:10:02 GMT -8
It might be fruitful to generate a character or two and pick it apart, in terms of how to use the Aspects that character has, to demonstrate the system. Might be a good thread to start. (hint, hint) I'll do it, I not too long ago played Moon-Knight in a secret avengers game. I'll post him along with aspects with invoke/compel examples. Looney Mooney
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2015 9:53:15 GMT -8
My point stands. It is much easier (for me) to take on the role of an imaginary character, if that character inhabits a world which follows knowable (to the character) rules of internal causality rather than unknowable rules of narrative causality. That the character can do this is one way that Simulationist games are conducive to role-playing, in which Narrative systems are not conducive to role-playing. I don't really see how these things are mutually exclusive, as you seem to be implying, but I'm rather tired of arguing this point. Don't try to correct what someone said unless you actually know what you're talking about. Doing so is poor etiquette. It's not that I have a style of role-playing, as you tried to claim. There is only one definition of role-playing, unless anyone anywhere can provide any sort of alternate definition, and you have repeatedly declined to do so. Sure, it's possible to have a game with all the merits of an intuitive, math-light system in a scientifically understandable world. That can be the ideal. But until someone actually writes that system, we have to choose our priorities.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2015 10:00:02 GMT -8
aside: I am curious what you're trying to gain from these discussions. Ideally, I'm trying to be convinced that it's possible for me to play FATE, given that so many others - even some respectable people - seem to enjoy it. It might just be a trick of perception, if I can approach it from the right direction. It's looking like that might not be possible, though, and I have little inclination to stick around and be insulted long enough to reach a definitive conclusion.
|
|
fredrix
Master Douchebag
Posts: 2,142
Preferred Game Systems: Fate, L5R, Pendragon, Gumshoe, Feng Shui
Currently Playing: Pendragon, Song of Ice and Fire, L5R, Feng Shui, Traveller
Currently Running: Fate, Coriolis, Nights Black Agents
Favorite Species of Monkey: 1970's NTV, dubbed by the BBC (though The Water Margin beats it)
|
Post by fredrix on Oct 6, 2015 10:14:17 GMT -8
Don't try to correct what someone said unless you actually know what you're talking about. I gave up talking to you a week or two ago. But, saying stuff like this, before saying how you don't like being insulted... Oh fuck, why am I even wasting my time again?
|
|
|
Post by shadrack on Oct 6, 2015 10:48:53 GMT -8
Ideally, I'm trying to be convinced that it's possible for me to play FATE That actually surprises me. I really wouldn't have guessed that was your goal. (shrugs) given that so many others - even some respectable people - seem to enjoy it. It might just be a trick of perception, if I can approach it from the right direction. It's looking like that might not be possible, though, and I have little inclination to stick around and be insulted long enough to reach a definitive conclusion. Now, the last sentence really seems funny considering the amount of shade you're throwing in the first section of your statement. ("even some respectable people") But I digress. As to your perspective issue, feel free to call FATE chips willpower or moxie or something like that. I doubt the kids at Evil Hat will care. Regardless, here's a bit that I don't think has been discussed explicitly. Given: We are discussing playing a role playing game. (if you don't agree then bail now, 'cause we aren't going to make any progress) Observation: Throughout all the discussions I can remember, your focus is primarily on 'role-playing' and not so much on 'game'. While this isn't (IMO) a major issue, I do think it is significant in some situations, particularly in the edge cases that are being brought up. (And I do see them as being edge cases, hard compels are not that frequent in my experience). Part of the situation here is that we are playing a game. People who agree to play a game with one another enter into a social contract (often not an explicit one). I would say that the most common item on most social contracts of this kind is mutual enjoyment of all participants throughout the game (otherwise,... why bother?). For instance, at one time you made a particular reference regarding maturing enough to let the new character into the party after the player's old one died and the player rolled up this new one (I'm not going hunting for the quote). This activity could be interpreted as having been done almost exclusively for the purposes of abiding by the social contract, namely, mutual enjoyment of all participants. Some groups may add additional items such as, "tell an interesting and engaging story" as a goal of the game (as opposed to hoping it arrives as a possible result of role playing). While this is clearly not strictly a role playing concern it is a concern for many players playing role playing games. And perhaps an addition such as this to the groups social contract would be necessary in a FATE game. Personally, I've never had to lay it out like that, but I don't think many would oppose something like that. Maybe that is too much out of character head space for your preferences, I don't know. Back to your stated goal, my opinion has always been that the best way to find out is to try the game out. Yeah, reading up, and getting your brain going will probably help, but still... Hit a con, get in a G+ game, see if someone in your group is interested in running, etc. However, if you are convinced that it won't work, then don't bother. The easiest way to sit through a crappy game is to go into it convinced that you'll have a crappy time.
|
|
sbloyd
Supporter
WHAT! A human in a Precursor service vehicle?!
Posts: 2,762
Preferred Game Systems: Storyteller; Dresden; Mage
Favorite Species of Monkey: Goddamnit, Curious George is a CHIMP not a monkey! Stop teaching my daughter improper classification!
|
Post by sbloyd on Oct 6, 2015 13:30:26 GMT -8
This is CreativeCowboy all over again.
Alas.
Look, saelorn. Assuming you're not some kind of elaborate troll attempt... I've tried to engage you like any other board member - far past what you deserve, IMHO. You've time and time again asserted your own opinions as solid fact, and used that pulpit to tell the rest of us that since we like Narrativist games, we're not role-playing. You come across as the stereotypical Aspie Gamer, apparently tone-deaf to his own attitude on the one hand and defensive nearly to the point of satire on the other.
Maybe Fate isn't the game for you - and moreover, maybe this isn't the community for you. I don't presume to speak for everyone, and that's just, like, my opinion, man.
To the blocklist with you.
|
|
tomes
Supporter
Hello madness
Posts: 1,438
Currently Running: Dungeon World, hippie games, Fallout Shelter RPG hack
|
Post by tomes on Oct 6, 2015 14:59:32 GMT -8
@saelorn: To me, this little section of Angry GM's little rant (found here: www.madadventurers.com/angry-rants-cool-it-with-the-dice/) illustrates how this whole argument with Fate vs. other systems is kind of silly: Getting pulled out the scene can happen with dice or D&D vs. Fate mechanics, just as anything else. Your familiarity with the system will affect that. Also, your enjoyment of the mechanics will help in one way or the other. You love D&D mechanics? You won't care that you were pulled out of immersive role-play mode, because you also like D&D math crunch mode. And you are familiar enough to jump in and out quickly enough. But the fact is, if you want pure role-playing immersion, you need to completely remove any game mechanics, because those will always pull you out of immersion. And they will always provide you with metagaming stuff to grasp on to. And your familiarity and desire to play with those mechanics will affect how much you resent being pulled from one mode to another. But when it comes down to it, the reason people are getting upset and flustered is because you are so vehemently and rigidly arguing your point, as so we're all just getting tired of hearing it. I don't want to block you because I think you might have interesting things to say, moving forward, however arguing definitions and semantics gets old, very quickly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2015 15:25:20 GMT -8
But the fact is, if you want pure role-playing immersion, you need to completely remove any game mechanics, because those will always pull you out of immersion. And they will always provide you with metagaming stuff to grasp on to. And your familiarity and desire to play with those mechanics will affect how much you resent being pulled from one mode to another. But when it comes down to it, the reason people are getting upset and flustered is because you are so vehemently and rigidly arguing your point, as so we're all just getting tired of hearing it. I don't want to block you because I think you might have interesting things to say, moving forward, however arguing definitions and semantics gets old, very quickly. And I agree with your points. If we are to retain any aspect of a game at all, and gain the benefits thereof, then we need to make concessions. Which concessions are acceptable and which are not is going to be a matter of personal preference. Fine. No disagreement there. It's just hard for me to deal with people who reject a line of reasoning because it sounds offensive or insulting, rather than due to any fault in the logic or the premise. But I've blocked them now, so hopefully I won't have to repeat myself anymore.
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Oct 6, 2015 15:43:01 GMT -8
It's just hard for me to deal with people who reject a line of reasoning because it sounds offensive or insulting, rather than due to any fault in the logic or the premise. Then perhaps you should work on not coming across as offensive and insulting. Here's a roleplaying opportunity for you: go back and read your posts, pretending to be anyone other than yourself. Edit: I did provide you with a definition of a roleplaying game thanks to sbloyd. You just didn't seem to like it, which, in your world, means it's wrong. A game in which players take on the roles of imaginary characters... That's my definition of a roleplaying game. It's a game in which the players take on the roles of imaginary characters.
|
|
|
Post by joecrak on Oct 6, 2015 15:52:55 GMT -8
this guy, he's like...I know I'll get frustrated and annoyed reading, but I just keep going back to read. I think I have a problem. Is this masochism? I'm not getting any pleasure out of it. Why do I persist?
|
|