Cleverness vs. Roleplaying
Aug 4, 2015 21:06:17 GMT -8
Post by mrmanowar on Aug 4, 2015 21:06:17 GMT -8
First of all, I wish to apologize for the long pontificating I do on this subject, but it is merely meant to stimulate discussion. First of all, I wish to define my terms along with a backstory for them. I realize being in Wisconsin I get a chance to play with the old school guys (and gals) a bit more than some of you may get to. One common thread I have noticed in them is when they tell their stories about great gaming stories of lore, (being with Gary Gygax or other TSR luminaries) it always has some anecdote of how they (meaning the PC's) always solved a trap, difficult situation, etc. with their clever solutions, not necessarily with what they said or
did while roleplaying out said scenario.
First of all, my clearly semantic definition of terms... Cleverness: a situation where one or more PC's does some action/maneuver of a sort that causes a DM to do something purely reactionary where from a mechanical perspective the DM wasn't aware of for a single encounter, etc. Roleplaying ( in the context of this discussion ): a situation where a PC talks or plays up his or her abilities in a way where it affects major NPC's to alter their course of action with long term story effects because of how well the story progressed with said actions/words. I also realize this is highly subjective based on DM adjudication.
Starting with "cleverness", I wonder if this comes from their wargaming background where the end goal was to outwit a player and such and when one player pulls a clever turn, (usually thinking outside the box or an ingenious twist of rules) on the DM, it turns the tables on a tactical situation. Tactical doesn't necessarily mean combat. It could mean puzzle solving or dealing with traps. I have found talking to a lot of the old guard that they can clearly reminisce on a situation where someone pulled something like this that had an outcome that they weren't expecting. I am not trying to set up a situation that is adversarial where it's the DM versus the PC's, but it seems to be a case of that where witty quick thinking was praised and arguably certain deathtrap modules like Tomb of Horrors and other traps were designed to counter PC wittiness. Notice modules like that don't really offer much in terms of what we would consider role-playing.
On the other hand, newer players I know love to talk about times where they confused or fast-talked a potential enemy or made specious alliances strictly on how they role-played things to affect the story. In the "cleverness" example... and again I am arbitrarily assigning definitions for descriptive ease here, the RP aspect didn't mean much, just their clever choice that was outside of the bounds of the DM's thinking. The role-players I've noticed love the alternative since the one (or more than one) they made potential allies with and such could affect the story later on whereas the "cleverness" aspect affected something native to the module or current adventure session only.
I was wondering if this was a trend you saw too, or if it was merely a semantic war. I have players on both sides of this based on the terminology I use and I try to cater to them both based on their interests. It appears that the "newer school" players love the roleplaying aspect but if I threw a math puzzle at them to solve a lock to open a chest/door, etc. they disregard it whereas my "cleverness" players would jump at the chance to solve it, without Google's help. On the other hand, my roleplayers would love a chance to persuade a haughty noble or similar sort to to become a potential ally or to create political intrigue in the game whereas my clever players would be more interested in the abacus the noble had.
Again, I realize my definitions and descriptions are arbitrary and may not reflect the full gamut of playstyles, but I have found that the more old school the gamer, the more they like clever, and the converse; the more new school the gamer they like role playing. I am not advocating one way or the other since I like to incorporate all styles and this is merely an observation. Have any of you experienced something like this or am I just a few beers short of a twelve pack?
did while roleplaying out said scenario.
First of all, my clearly semantic definition of terms... Cleverness: a situation where one or more PC's does some action/maneuver of a sort that causes a DM to do something purely reactionary where from a mechanical perspective the DM wasn't aware of for a single encounter, etc. Roleplaying ( in the context of this discussion ): a situation where a PC talks or plays up his or her abilities in a way where it affects major NPC's to alter their course of action with long term story effects because of how well the story progressed with said actions/words. I also realize this is highly subjective based on DM adjudication.
Starting with "cleverness", I wonder if this comes from their wargaming background where the end goal was to outwit a player and such and when one player pulls a clever turn, (usually thinking outside the box or an ingenious twist of rules) on the DM, it turns the tables on a tactical situation. Tactical doesn't necessarily mean combat. It could mean puzzle solving or dealing with traps. I have found talking to a lot of the old guard that they can clearly reminisce on a situation where someone pulled something like this that had an outcome that they weren't expecting. I am not trying to set up a situation that is adversarial where it's the DM versus the PC's, but it seems to be a case of that where witty quick thinking was praised and arguably certain deathtrap modules like Tomb of Horrors and other traps were designed to counter PC wittiness. Notice modules like that don't really offer much in terms of what we would consider role-playing.
On the other hand, newer players I know love to talk about times where they confused or fast-talked a potential enemy or made specious alliances strictly on how they role-played things to affect the story. In the "cleverness" example... and again I am arbitrarily assigning definitions for descriptive ease here, the RP aspect didn't mean much, just their clever choice that was outside of the bounds of the DM's thinking. The role-players I've noticed love the alternative since the one (or more than one) they made potential allies with and such could affect the story later on whereas the "cleverness" aspect affected something native to the module or current adventure session only.
I was wondering if this was a trend you saw too, or if it was merely a semantic war. I have players on both sides of this based on the terminology I use and I try to cater to them both based on their interests. It appears that the "newer school" players love the roleplaying aspect but if I threw a math puzzle at them to solve a lock to open a chest/door, etc. they disregard it whereas my "cleverness" players would jump at the chance to solve it, without Google's help. On the other hand, my roleplayers would love a chance to persuade a haughty noble or similar sort to to become a potential ally or to create political intrigue in the game whereas my clever players would be more interested in the abacus the noble had.
Again, I realize my definitions and descriptions are arbitrary and may not reflect the full gamut of playstyles, but I have found that the more old school the gamer, the more they like clever, and the converse; the more new school the gamer they like role playing. I am not advocating one way or the other since I like to incorporate all styles and this is merely an observation. Have any of you experienced something like this or am I just a few beers short of a twelve pack?