I was just wondering, how come throughout most of this thread we seem to focus on the idea that the player is playing out a role entirely based on a human set of characteristics? I''m not thinking about other races here, but why do we seem to think that the character should be basically an exact copy of humans in the real world? We all know this isn''t true, in RPGs you can get cut by a sword about 7-8 times and still be alive, in RPGs with guns you can get shot so many times with machine guns and still be alive.

Should we really be focussing on modelling the character off of humans or are we really modelling the character off of what suits the role, he/she plays, best? Does this mean that sometimes we''ve changed physically the way things work - to work with the role - and does this further mean that sometimes the physical aspects of the character that we generate have been, basically, "tampered" with in order to release the restrictions they set down to allow more freedom to the character?

Whether you think some of that is BS, it''s hard to say that we are really modelling the characters body - we are modelling the character''s role and giving it some numbers in order to play out that role. Now if this is true, why isn''t the role having more affect on the character? By this I mean that what makes up a role, what effect should that have on the character and thus what effects are passed on to the player by this? Furthermore, if we mould the character''s physical attributes to the role, could this work in reverse?

Could a gradual change in the character''s role result in a change in the character''s physical ability to allow for the character to play out the role - I''m inclined to believe this isn''t the case as how often do you find your body changing when you change jobs? This says to me that perhaps the character''s physical aspects are really only in place to assure that the player doesn''t go outside the role - but perhaps there are better ways to control this. For instance, guiding the player through the role by assuring that digressing from the role results in changes to the world that he/she may or may not like.

Also another possibility is to have other controlling methods, like for instance skills (which can also be considered to be stats - but I already cleared up that when I say stats I mean the physical type of stats) or items as I mentioned previously.

But getting back to roles (which is what RPGs are about)...

Anyone got any ideas what constitutes a role? I could start with the simple things, like the things said, (interactions with other people), actions that the character makes, decisions the character makes.

What are the effects those have on the character, most of them have consequences, for instance if a character bad mouths their boss, then they could get a crappy job like cleaning a toilet. Or if a character decides to say, I dunno, program something poorly, then the boss might see this and decide that he isn''t pulling his load. Or if the character runs into the a park naked, will this result in the police apprehending them for indecent exposure.

Of course, it''s clear that none of those would make for a great game, in a good game for starters there would never be a time where u have to clean a toilet, or act out to be programming something or even run around naked. But take those into real game situations, like whether to support the rebel cause in a civil war, or to face a moral dilemma like supporting an old friend or sacrificing them for your job or lover or something.

What other types of things defines a role in a world?

Crap - forgot to type my password in.
Anyway - I also wanted to add, is the physical side of things only a fair control method is specific RPGs - have we sometimes made the mistake of assuming that these are the best case in any RPG? I can only think that fantasy world (ala medieval weaponry based combat) RPGs really have a focus on the physical side of things because it was all combat and less brains.

quote: Original post by Maitrek

In RPGs you can get cut by a sword about 7-8 times and still be alive, in RPGs with guns you can get shot so many times with machine guns and still be alive.

Well I actually disagree with that way of doing things completely, and it is definately colouring my way of looking at things. I think "combat" is not a good RPG element. Combat is entirely secondary - if you want a fighting game go play QuakeIII, that game is geared entirely towards combat.

I want to de-emphasize combat in my designs, and to do that I want to make it more lethal. You want to get in a fight? Suits me fine, but don''t come whining if you have to spend three weeks in the hospital afterwards!
Now, this is a personal decision of mine, and I realise that a lot of people will feel that "their" idea of a good RPG has been violated if I strip out the violence. You have the right to think that.

quote: Original post by Maitrek

But getting back to roles (which is what RPGs are about)...

Anyone got any ideas what constitutes a role? I could start with the simple things, like the things said, (interactions with other people), actions that the character makes, decisions the character makes.

That''s a good question, Maitrek. Perhaps we should define a "role" more clearly than we have done in the past. This is probably where some of the less friendly parts of the discussion have had their origin. We don''t agree on the definition of a "role".

So lets think about mine.

A character''s role is the combination of personality, physique and profession ( skill set if you wish ). I prefer to concentrate on the personality of my characters to develop the role I am playing.
Usually, this personality is pretty close to my own, with a few marked differences that I decide to play out. Sometimes that can be a huge flaw ( I''ve played schizophrenic characters ), or simply a short temper ( usually combined with playing a Troll ).

Actually, I''m still not sure what defines a role.
I''ll have to think about it more.




Give me one more medicated peaceful moment.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important social functions will be disabled from now on.

I like to define roleplaying having an understanding of a character that would lead you to do SOMETHING OTHER THAN the best thing for them to survive, you're roleplaying. Hence, a role would be a knowledge of the character with information sufficient to accomplish such a task.

As a note, this doesn't mean suicidal character. This just means that when you aren't always thinking about what's best, what works, what's effective, until the character WOULD be, you're roleplaying.

i.e. In life, the consequences of steroids outweigh the benefits. If this were the same in a game, but you used them in accordance with the role you played, you'd actually be roleplaying. Or, as a better example...

As my friend Ryan ( a long time D&D player ) was first looking over the rules for Shadowrun, he asks: "Why do they have rules for being a drug addict?" If you can't answer that question, you've missed my point.

=====
Are you aware that the people who bring you television actually refer to it openly as "programming?"

Edited by - Freakshow on July 17, 2000 4:32:44 AM

What about a role = character + personality?
or
Role = character + personality / 2
ie. role is a middle ground between character and personality. Ok, time to hit the dictonary :-)

15 seconds later...

Hey wow, it''s got roleplaying in the dictionary..

role-play-ing n. Psychol. activity in which a person imitates, consciously or unconsciously, a role uncharacteristic of him/herself.
See also psychodrama

role n. 1. a part or character in a play, film, etc., to be played by an actor or actress. 2. Psychol. the part played by a person in a particular social setting, influenced by his expectation of what is appropriate. 3. usual or customary fuction: what is his role in the organization? [C17:from French role ROLL, an actor''s script]

I love Game Design and it loves me back.

Our Goal is "Fun"!

quote:
2. Psychol. the part played by a person in a particular social setting, influenced by his expectation of what is appropriate.

That''s the definition closest to mine that I''ve seen yet. Does anyone disagree with me?


Give me one more medicated peaceful moment.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important social functions will be disabled from now on.

I happen to think that lots of RPGs are murder based - which is a problem in itself. In saying that we shouldn''t have them muder-based - what are we using the character''s body for then? It becomes even less pertinent to the entire scheme of things than it was before - because to be brutally honest, it boils down to other types of confrontations with the environment (remember the three types of conflict, environmental, personal and something else) rather than violent conflicts between people/monsters. That means that the player has a big say in what the character does, meaning that - indirectly - we reduce the different roles a player can play by doing this - especially if the player is a mental retard. So how important is the ability for the player to play a billion different roles?

quote: Original post by Maitrek

In saying that we shouldn''t have them murder-based - ( snip ) we reduce the different roles a player can play...

We only remove one "role" - namely the "bloodlusty goblin slayer bastard" role
We can teach our players different skills, interaction skills, tactical evasion skills, puzzling skills... it doesn''t have to be strategic combat at all.




Give me one more medicated peaceful moment.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important social functions will be disabled from now on.

Man, I wish I could have posted over the weekend..oh well.

Niphty, I don''t know if you were disagreeing with me or Maitrek about the char affecting the player, but I''d like to clear that up. I too like my chars to the point that I don''t ever like leaving them behind. Part of this is that, usually, I was able to craft this char myself, and in doing so, putting a bit of myself into it. However, the char itself doesn''t affect the player, but the outcomes of his/her actions. What is actually affecting the player is the story and the actions the char makes. Being attached and being affected emotionally are two different things. Yes, the goal is to make the player feel like the s/he is the char, if you think about it, this just means that the player feels like the story is happening to him/her, instead of the blip on the screen.

Also, about int stat. If you view it as how much the char knows, that''s not int, that''s skills. Skills represent how much your char knows about something, and what s/he can do with that knowledge. If you view int as how quickly the char learns, how does this stat reflect that? Faster acquisition of exp? Learning skills faster? Skills are acquired by learning, but how are you learning these skills? Books? Would learning faster really impact the player if it just meant you didn''t have to sit and read books for as long?

Finally, although this deserves it''s own thread, what the role is is a very good question. I''d like to say something about Keith limiting the roles. This is a game for the player. It''s a way for them to be something they are not. Just because you think combat isn''t a plausable solution for things doesn''t mean that the player will want to play a role like that. I personally like roles were I let my sword do the talking, but that doesn''t mean I''m a "bloodlusty goblin slayer bastard". My chars never attack without a reason (except for one of my chars, hehehe...), and there can be nobility with combat. Do you think it''s fair to limit what the player can and cannot be?

Sorry for the long post Paul, BTW, I seem to recall you didn''t like stats. Am I wrong? I''ll have to comb over a few of Landfish''s threads....

-------------------------------------------
"What's the story with your face, son?!?"

Stats show the player the guild lines for role playing their character as well, correct? If a character has a int of 8/18 then this will obviously be a major role characteristic, period. So visual stats are somewhat necessary so the player can understand why their characters role is working the way it does.

To me a "Role" is kind of like a skin for the character. It fits like a glove and it communicates the characters character. The stats must then be the muscles like of the character.

I love Game Design and it loves me back.

Our Goal is "Fun"!