Not Roleplaying vs Not Role Playing How I Like

[jburneko]

Ron, said something that caught my attention in the "Taking It All Too Seriously Thread" I wanted to explore it a little and so I thought it deserved it's own thread.

Okay so Ron said:

I do want to call attention to the way that these essays do not really draw a distinction between "person who is role-playing, but not in the way I'd most like," and "person who is simply not role-playing at all, despite being present, and is causing hassles."
[\quote]

What I'd like to know is when does the first BECOME an instance of the second? For me the answer is: Quite Quickly.  And perhaps this is just more of, "Dude, Calm DOWN, it's just a game" on my part but allow me to explain further.  

So I was once running this Steam Punk scenario and one of my players designed a character who was a native of india and who had come to England for various reasons.  On paper the character looked quite straight and very interesting so I didn't object.  HOWEVER, come actual play he portrayed this guy like a hindi version of Inspecter Clueso.

Now, if I were thinking Historically this guy should have been thrown out of houses and arrested seven times over for disrespecting his "betters".  But that isn't what the game was about.  It clashed with the tone and pacing I was trying to get across.  So in this case it was a 'hassle' to deal with this character as portayed by the player.

And it's not like he was doing this TO BE disruptive.  When he wasn't involved he sat quietly and respected the other player's turn in the spot light.  This was just how he was playing the character BUT if going over the events of session I feel like 'editing' out a character then that, to me, is a problem.  That IS a dysfunctional group in my opinion.  Now, there's a big difference between roleplaying how I WANT people to roleplay and roleplaying in accordance with the tone and pacing and several other factors that I try to lay on the table before hand.  If you've got a character who fits with all of that but totally throws me for a loop because I wasn't expecting such a interesting take on what I had brought to the table, then so be it.

The one thing I hate about roleplaying games is thier tendency to devolve into sillyness and slapstick.  I'm not against comedy but I'm more "L.A. Story" then "Dude, Where's My Car."  The Hindi Inspecter Clueso might be funny for one scene of comic relief but not as one of the central characters.  (For real insights into my sense of humor consider this: In my opinion "Fight Club" is a comedy.)

But I'm not all doom and gloom either.  My favorite role-playing game is 7th Sea.  But even in such a bold strokes and wild card attitude game I'm looking for Style and Panache, not slapstick. I like my light hearted adventure taken seriously so to speak.

Does any of this make sense or am I really taking it all too seriously?

Jesse

[Marco]

I've been there. I think that one of the key problems arises when two gamers (GM and player usually but also player/player) share a different vision of 'how things should be.'

(I think this is the most dangerous stumbling block in Narrativist games as well--but I might be misinterperting something).

In game mechanics it ranges from "I should survive being shot at by an uzi because Mel Gibsion does in the movies" (player perspective) vs. "Uzi's are deady: talk don't fight." (GM perspective).

In player terms it shows up like your detective. The character's legit on paper, fits the basic genre, but doesn't fit in.

1. Talk to the player. That can be difficult if people are defensive or touchy but it usually worth the risk since it works so well when done right.

2. You might think about where your game falls on the absuridty index aside from that character. In Pynchon's Mason & Dixon there were, amongst other things, a talking dog in the middle of a "historical" fiction (okay, it wasn't--but it was told like one and then back-loaded with surreal encounters). The characters were more or less straight up and the world wasn't. In a game like that the player might well feel 'misled.'

3. I find player-suggestions heavy handed in the middle of a gaming session but sometimes telling a player "I realize you feel you should do 'X' but your character thinks 'Y'" works--especially if the character is outside the player's experinece and more in mine.'

I don't think you're taking it too seriously--player-group-GM mechanics are one of the hardest things to get straight.

-Marco
[ JAGS (Just Another Gaming System)
http://jagsgame.dyndns.org/jags/index.jsp ]

[james_west]

You sound like you're running into a straight misunderstanding of the genre, which is a common problem with historical settings. Also, you have to -really- watch out for any character for whom there is an obvious funny accent. Funny accent characters very commonly devolve into slapstick.

    - James

[Ian O'Rourke]

On 2001-09-10 17:24, james_west wrote:
Also, you have to -really- watch out for any character for whom there is an obvious funny accent. Funny accent characters very commonly devolve into slapstick.

Quite true, but I also hold the same true for short characters. I tend to avoid halflings, gnomes, Jawas, etc like the plague.

At times I'm tempted, a player recently pitched a great idea for a Jawa character, and he had me convinced it was a serious thing - but I had strong feelings it would not work as a part of the whole group experience :smile:

As for the original question, that's difficult. I don't what the dividing line is, I can only say what works for me.

The key to a successful game for me is frank discussion up front about what everyone's goals are - I find this avoids all problems. I also find that no matter what type of character a player comes up (assuming elements of it are bad for the game for some reason) they are always open to discussion (and subsequent change) if it brings them closer to the centre of the game and being more integrated into the premise/setting.

[TrizzlWizzl]

So the player wasn't actually being disruptive, he was playing his character consistantly and well, yet you're not happy with it becuase it was too much of a "hassle"?  I think it's important that you address the situation right away; assuming, of course, that this is part of an ongoing campaign in which such a nonsensical character would eventually become a distraction.

If the game was a one-shot, however, I don't really see a problem with a player bringing a comedic character to the table... especially if he 1) adds something to the plot, preferably something interesting and 2) doesn't get in the way of other players having a good time (maybe even enhances it).  If those two conditions are met, I'd think it was up to you as the GM to get your game on it's feet and out the door.  If a player isn't roleplaying in a way you like but isn't getting in the way of the other player's Fun Time Box, then I'd say it's up to you to find a way to match wits with the roleplayer.  Shutting down a character everyone (except you) is having fun with just because it forces you to deal with it in a way you didn't anticipate... doesn't sound like a good idea.

[Ron Edwards]

TrizzlWizzl,

If you'll check out the thread from which Jesse is quoting, and read the material right after his excerpt, you'll find that I said exactly the same thing to him.

If the player is actually role-playing, then it's the GM's job to adjust his preconceptions about that session.

What puzzles me most about this discussion is why the GM is surprised by the player DURING PLAY? Did they not talk about the game beforehand? Did they not talk about characters beforehand? Did they all just "show up and play"?

If so, that - and only that - is the problem.

Best,
Ron

[ This Message was edited by: Ron Edwards on 2001-10-17 18:32 ]

[jburneko]

To be clear, I questioned the character's acceptability for the scenario but the player in question gave me a very reasonable and straight-laced description of the character.  And I'd even said, 'Alright but only if you play him as straight as you just described him.'

Also before the game I had explained what the nature of the Steampunk genre was.  I had explained that it was a re-examination of 19th Century ideals through the more cynical eye of the 20th Century.  It was clear that my scenario was not a comedy.

I would have no problem dealing with unexpected elements of play IF they were in accordance with the already laid out guidelines for the nature of the scenario.  As I said, dealing with the unexpected is different from dealing with the inappropriate.  I'm prepared to deal with the unexpected. I'm not prepared to deal with the inappropriate.  If there were no communication before hand then yes, I would have no one to blame but myself.  But I had tried my hardest to communicate up front the nature of the scenario up to and including questioning the appropriateness of the character in question.

Jesse

[Mike Holmes]

Well, it certainly sounds like you probably have some cause to complain. If the player did lie about his intentions as far as how he would play, and said he was OK with your restrictions, and then violated them, then he was out of line.

Did you remind him of that commitment? After the first infraction? If not, then the player may have thought that you were giving tacit approval to continue. He may not understand the damage he is doing.

Communication.

Mike

[TrizzlWizzl]

Did you remind him of that commitment? After the first infraction? If not, then the player may have thought that you were giving tacit approval to continue. He may not understand the damage he is doing.

Um... damage to what, exactly?  I don't really understand the refrence to 'damage'.  If he was making everyone mad and ruining the session for everybody, I would call that 'damage'.  If he wasn't, I'm not totally sure what damage was being done.

Also, was the player in question aware of the narrativist nature of the game? (It was Story Engine, right?)  If he wasn't, you might have been able to approah him on a level he could understand more directly.  What I'm saying is... if you've got a gamist in your narrativist game, what you might want to do is set aside trying to explain the game in terms of "premise/theme/etc." (because those wouldn't really be concerns of his) and begin explaining it in more gamist terminology ("mechanics/rules/reward system").  That way, you get what you want (the player 'taking it seriously') while the gamist (or whatever) feels like he's taking appropriate measures given the system.

That's what I would do anyway.

[Mike Holmes]

On 2001-10-18 15:54, TrizzlWizzl wrote:
Um... damage to what, exactly?  I don't really understand the refrence to 'damage'.  If he was making everyone mad and ruining the session for everybody, I would call that 'damage'.  If he wasn't, I'm not totally sure what damage was being done.

That's exactly what I'm refering to. Also, the GM may have material prepared which the players are not aware of, and which may not be as good as it might be if the mood for which it is designed is not maintained (as in the example). This is, of course, subject to the GMs subjectivity. He felt that, in this case damage was being done.

Also, was the player in question aware of the narrativist nature of the game? (It was Story Engine, right?)  If he wasn't, you might have been able to approah him on a level he could understand more directly.  What I'm saying is... if you've got a gamist in your narrativist game, what you might want to do is set aside trying to explain the game in terms of "premise/theme/etc." (because those wouldn't really be concerns of his) and begin explaining it in more gamist terminology ("mechanics/rules/reward system").  That way, you get what you want (the player 'taking it seriously') while the gamist (or whatever) feels like he's taking appropriate measures given the system.

Yes, I quite agree, always stick with terminology people get. Just good communications. I don't think that Jesse would have a problem with that.

Mike