The Gaming Den

That's about it. I'm wondering what makes good roleplay for people. For me I like to see players get into the game. I like to see when their reactions mirror what their character's should be.

Good roleplay is making use of yourself in your character to make the story furthered. If the entire group is enjoying it, it is good roleplay, if you are the only one enjoying it, and doesnt do anything for the group somewhere down the road, then its ok roleplay, so long as that isnt continuous so that you are the only one ever enjoying it then it is bad roleplay.

I like to see complex characters in play, and I like to see the characters grow and change from the effects of the story. Sometimes complexity is just an excuse for angst, which I admit, but its the worst and not the best of the trope. Leto the II is a dark character, but certainly not an angsty one.

MGuy wrote:That's about it. I'm wondering what makes good roleplay for people. For me I like to see players get into the game. I like to see when their reactions mirror what their character's should be.

That's part of it, for me.

I like interacting with the world and the people in it. As MC, I feel I'm doing a good job if the players decide to go check in on an NPC they haven't heard from in a while.

Other than that, I like making decisions I wouldn't personally make but that my character would. I guess that's pretty much the base definition of RP and escapism, but I do find it fun.

Good roleplay is when the characters make decisions based on whether or not that decision/action is appropriate for the character, regardless of metagame concerns. When people try to preserve immersion, rather than breaking it with "he's only got 2 HP left" or "I can jump off the roof, it's only 3d6 damage".

I like characters to change and grow over time. It's one of the reasons I don't like writing up character backgrounds anymore. For me a large part of roleplaying is also having clearly defined hopes, dreams, fears and goals for characters. I find proactive PCs both fun to play and MC for, since it causes the PCs to really become the driving force behind the story.

I like evolving characters and an evolving world. The world should have an impact on what my character is doing, but conversely, my character's actions should leave an imprint. For a lot of people, a world's believability is based in its physics, but for me, a world's believability is based on my ability to interact with it.

I have always been disappointed in the fact that there is no reputation mechanic in D&D.

Consistency.

PoliteNewb wrote:Good roleplay is when the characters make decisions based on whether or not that decision/action is appropriate for the character, regardless of metagame concerns. When people try to preserve immersion, rather than breaking it with "he's only got 2 HP left" or "I can jump off the roof, it's only 3d6 damage".

Would the statements "He's almost down!" or, "I can jump off the roof, it won't cause me serious harm," be better?

EDIT: typo

The best feedback I have got from a player was that they were able to visualise what was going on in the story. That made it easy for them to react to the campaign world in an appropriate manner. I use appropriate rather than realistic, coz of fantastic beasts and magic and everything, but there is probably a better word.

Sometimes Immersive players can take things a little too far, by that I mean they are overly critical of people using PK (player knowledge) and tend to look down on other players who don't have the same 'pure' experience that they claim to have. I've never had to worry about people wearing a cape and jumping on the furniture wielding a toy sword...The toy sword bit yes, but no capes fortunately.

RadiantPhoenix wrote:

PoliteNewb wrote:Good roleplay is when the characters make decisions based on whether or not that decision/action is appropriate for the character, regardless of metagame concerns. When people try to preserve immersion, rather than breaking it with "he's only got 2 HP left" or "I can jump off the roof, it's only 3d6 damage".

Would the statements "He's almost down!" or, "I can jump off the roof, it won't cause me serious harm," be better?

EDIT: typo

Yes, much better, actually. I know it sounds nitpicky to some.

Well, I describe good roleplay as describing actions based on how the rules say those actions play out. If I play a character that makes constant hide and move silently checks in a dungeon, you can bet that they're passively doing so in a tavern. Using your characters actual options, not the ones that the player has decided to give their character. Of course, psychology of a character will very often shape opinions about different options. It's a mix of understanding the system, and the psychology of the character.

PoliteNewb wrote:Yes, much better, actually. I know it sounds nitpicky to some.

Personally, I think your preferences are indicative of being able to translate mechanics into a good story. Someone who uses terminology like "he only has 2 HP left" comes off as playing a minis game, rather than roleplaying.

Entertaining the other participants.
Yes, I know it's trite.

Its not trite at all. I've always thought that was what the game is about. Even with all the arguments and fuming on here at the end of the day it is all about having fun. Fun for me is when I'm DMing and I "see" my players getting into character. When they come to me later telling me they are going home to have a proper funeral for their character. When I hear them talking about a campaign months after the fact. That makes me happy to play the game.

When I'm playing on the other hand I want to lose myself in my character. I want to be able to make witty statements, dramatize, be creative, etc whenever I can. I want to laugh with my character, cry with him, feel the excitement of success and the disappointment and frustration of failure. Its like acting with more dice.

Isn't it called cooperative storytelling for a reason?

Making decisions based on how the character would react instead of purely how it benefits the player, letting the character develop and grow based on current events, interacting with other PCs as well in NPCs in a way that's consistent with the character's views and personality.

1. Character Development potential (Negates Sueism)

2. Both goods and bads (Makes for an actual character, not a cardboard cut-out of one)

3. Consistency (Mentioned earlier by others)

4. Staying in-character

That's about all I can think of right now without elaborating. Also, what is good role-play to some might be crappy for others.

Good roleplay is when the player gets to play the character (ie not the character sheet) he always wanted to play in a story he always wished to experience.

There is nothing more to it than that.

Maj wrote:Isn't it called cooperative storytelling for a reason?

Yes, but there are those who don't care for that part of the games.

Good RP is having pathology, goals and moativations.

shadzar wrote:

Maj wrote:Isn't it called cooperative storytelling for a reason?

Yes, but there are those who don't care for that part of the games.

And some of us don't care to play with those people.

sabs wrote:

shadzar wrote:

Maj wrote:Isn't it called cooperative storytelling for a reason?

Yes, but there are those who don't care for that part of the games.

And some of us don't care to play with those people.

Sadly, more games are being made for those people that do not care for the cooperative storytelling game.

Modern RPGs are moving more towards CPGs (Character Playing Games), as the character is becoming more important than the story, and characters need not cooperation to play, as they are the property of but a single player.

This is why I play Shadowrun and Ars Magica, and not wankfestD&D

Why the fuck is anyone going to play at your fucking game if they're not allowed to mother-fucking storytell?

Seriously? What the fuck? Even wargaming is ultimately about storytelling. You're trying to resolve how the story of those guys and these dudes are duking it out for the objective, and who wins, and what it cost to achieve it. As well as the fallout of said events.

Everyone at the table had better be able to contribute to the storytelling, if not they're just passive participants, and/or minor characters; and that's just plain wrong and unfair.

Ideally, the characters will contribute equally in every scene. Traps should be included as part of combat encounters, diplomacy as part of travel encounters, and by throwing lots of potential things at the group at once, everyone will try to take on a different challenge.

The discussions on how Inception was a good model on how Shadowrun Matrix running could work is not a bad way to think about how to make more encounters more inclusive of more PCs, thus allowing them more chances to shine as a group, not as individuals. Something that D&D was never originally about, and every effort to make the system operate that way has been fraught with problems.

Seriously, for Combat encounters to encourage collective play, the whole group needs to add their dice to a collective pool and use them to resolve the whole encounter. If not we still have the problems of hyper-diplomats and uber-chargers; becuase the game never was about working as a group, but rather as a bunch of heroes who are grudgingly/happily allied for a common goal.