BGTSCC's RP Environment - A Discussion

[gedweyignasia]

Game and story aren't mutually exclusive.

I was referring to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdqhHKjepiE&t=354s

[DaloLorn]

Either way, the grindiness combined with the lack of progression can definitely make it feel like an MMO sometimes. It gets worse, though, when characters around your own age end up rocketing ahead of you because they have a higher tolerance for the mindless tedium of it... making it difficult to interact with them, which ends up killing both.

Rinn recently fell victim to this phenomenon. Her only friend rushed through the levels on a dozen xvart runs (and then got RCRed, but that's just adding fuel to the existing fire of not getting to keep bonding with her), while everyone else in her level range has died, picked fights with her, or OOCly refused to have anything to do with her. She can't adventure, she's too antisocial to care for social RP, and she's still far too weak to get started on overt villainy. All this on a character I had such high hopes for.

[AgentOrange]

Game and story aren't mutually exclusive.

I was referring to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdqhHKjepiE&t=354s

I figured and I don't agree with all of that. BG isn't RimWorld. RimWorld is (without a mod that breaks a lot of other mods) single player. I'd only play it cooperatively anyway.

Setback and failure make for better story, sure. But players should cooperate to make compelling stories. If they can't then the least they can do is stay in their lanes and not try to ruin the fun for other players.

[gedweyignasia]

Setback and failure make for better story, sure. But players should cooperate to make compelling stories. If they can't then the least they can do is stay in their lanes and not try to ruin the fun for other players.

Not all conflict in a story is player versus player. There's player versus nature and player versus machine (NPCs?). Those can have players cooperating, but without setbacks the story isn't very interesting in any of those.

[Hoihe]

The word "consequences" is thrown around way too much in this game.

It's a game. Fun supercedes consequences.

Should it be a game or a story, though? In a game, you want your character to do well. In a story, you want a compelling narrative. Some of the best RP I've had is when I had a character of mine permakilled who was in the middle of a plot. It meant that the other player's actions had a real impact in the world; they changed something. It was "consequences" for my character, who had (through their own fault in almost every case) their story ended prematurely, but it was "making a meaningful impact in the world" for other characters.

I'm not saying that everyone needs to open their characters up to permadeath or that anyone who doesn't is standing in the way of RP. What I'm trying to say is that a setback for your character--who is trying to accomplish something--creates as meaningful a change in the world as a step forward. Don't let, "I'm mad because this story never got to happen" be the way you see things. Look at it as, "The path of this world has been changed by my character's failure."

It's hard not to root for your character at some times, since you're the person who's responsible for their agency and is pushing them to work towards their ends, but it's important not to project too much or conflict (which is the heart of every story) can leave you bitter.

There is a third option to game vs story:

Experience/Sensation.

All that matters is how well you can feel as your character senses the world, experiences emotions. You don't need a story for that.


This is what roleplaying is. It's a simulation of life, a pursuit of perfect immersion - not storytelling. Books are storytelling.

Analogy and Identity
A central feature of Simulationism is that it rejects closely identifying role-playing with either fiction writing or other types of games. This is important, because role-playing is often viewed and judged by external standards. For example, an RPG might be judged poor if the events it produces would not make a good book or movie of that type. Conversely, an RPG might be judged poor if it isn't fairly balance like a board game or card game.

Rejecting this identification is important to finding out what is interesting about RPGs uniquely. Thus Simulationism calls for throwing out preconceptions about what the game should be like, and instead requiring people to form their opinion about how they like play as itself. Simulationism allows that individual techniques might be borrowed from other activities -- like mechanics from card games, or inspiration from novels. However, that doesn't mean that role-playing is any of those other activities, or that the essence of role-playing is the same as them.

In some ways, this might be viewed as transitional. Once you have learned about role-playing free from analogies, you can try mixing it and relating it more with other activities. But it is vital to try throwing out preconceptions for a while, at least.


Role-playing and Immersion
Simulationist role-playing is concerned about accurately reflecting other personalities, cultures, and philosophies from your own. The means of doing so is not clearly reflected in the definition. This need not be a clinically-detached intellectual exercise. It can be an emotional experience as well as an educational one. Note that Simulationism rejects literary basis, so imitating how similar characters behave in movies or TV is rejected. Detailed role-playing calls for probing the motivations of the characters, not simply imitating other sources.

On rgfa, most simulationist posters were opposed to coercive personality mechanics. These are mechanics which specified what a player character should think or do independent of the player, such as having a numeric trait like "Self-control 4" which is rolled against to determine one's action in certain situations. In discussion, the primary argument was accuracy. Adding in such rules was not felt to make character behavior more real. For a skilled roleplayer it would interfere with attempts, and for a poor roleplayer it would simply add uncorrelated random reactions to the poor roleplaying -- and real people do not behave randomly. I feel this argument is strong, but there is a further reason. The emotional power of Simulationism usually stems from the consequences of player choice. For similar reasons, Simulationists tended to favor point-based character creation rather than random-roll.

While it is not part of the rgfa definition, there is often an association of Simulationism with what is called "immersion". For example, many of the simulation-oriented posters on rgfa were also in favor of what was called "deep in-character" play or immersive play. In Petter Bøckman's adaptation of the Threefold Model FAQ for Scandanavian LARP, he substituted the term "Immersionism" for "Simulationism".[4]

There are many views on exactly what immersive play is, or even whether it exists at all. James Wallis, in his essay "Through a Mask, Darkly", discusses a type of immersive play which he calls mask-play (based on Keith Johnstone's concept of 'the Mask state' in acting). As he describes it,

'Mask-play' is the most complete way that the player can enter the game-world. Think of it as a virtual reality: when the player looks around, they see the game-world. They look at other players and see the characters. They look in a mirror and see their character's face. Only by doing this, by shutting out as much of the real world as possible, will the player be able to let their normal personality take a back seat, and allow the personality of their fictional character to take over. I can't describe what that actually means because it doesn't happen often enough to be analyzed, but personal experience makes me think it's worth striving for. [5]

This certainly relates to other narrative forms. In his book on creative writing, the Lajos Egri writes:
The first step is to make your reader or viewer identify your character as someone he knows. Step two -- if the author can make the audience imagine that what is happening can happen to him, the situation will be permeated with aroused emotion and the viewer will experience a sensation so great that he will feel not as a spectator but as the participant of an exciting drama before him. [6]

I do not mean to imply that immersive mask-play is a superior (or inferior) form of the same experience as fiction. However, I think it is important to note the similarities between them -- as opposed to considering them opposites.

The full topic of immersive play is beyond the scope of this essay. Some people (such as Wallis) consider it important, and it seems to correlate with Simulationist play.

Souce:

https://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/th ... onism.html

Formerly I used "Losing Self" or "Bleed" before to describe mask-play, and have always seen it as the pinnacle of RP when it is reached. When you break down in tears because NPCs died and cannot stop. When you feel indescribable joy from simply sitting in the same tavern as those your character loves, even if you're not talking and just sitting there in the corner, enjoying their company.



Please stop pretending roleplay has anything to do with story writing.

Maybe it does for you.

I for one care not for stories. All I care for is: "Am I able to become immersed in my character, and are the people I am interacting with likewise immersed and are using emotes to ensure we all feel and see and hear the same thing?"

In fact, while it makes me a hypocrite to say: I feel story-focused roleplay hampers the quality. As it discards the character as just a tool to be used, one that has no real stay, one that will disappear for no reason.

And often narrativists will avoid mask-play too, out of belief it will reduce the "drama/conflict" if they focus on the minutae "that does not matter for the story".

[AgentOrange]

Either way, the grindiness combined with the lack of progression can definitely make it feel like an MMO sometimes. It gets worse, though, when characters around your own age end up rocketing ahead of you because they have a higher tolerance for the mindless tedium of it... making it difficult to interact with them, which ends up killing both.

Rinn recently fell victim to this phenomenon. Her only friend rushed through the levels on a dozen xvart runs (and then got RCRed, but that's just adding fuel to the existing fire of not getting to keep bonding with her), while everyone else in her level range has died, picked fights with her, or OOCly refused to have anything to do with her. She can't adventure, she's too antisocial to care for social RP, and she's still far too weak to get started on overt villainy. All this on a character I had such high hopes for.

I think that's more of a problem with the North and UD having been largely neglected. I haven't met Rinn, no thanks to differing time zones, but it's something Team Evil players have been pointing out ad nauseam.

If the staff makes those areas interactive and enjoyable, we won't see Team Evil treating BG as an MMO in which to mindlessly grind, or shoehorning ourselves into Team Good stuff out of nothing else to do because we're just logging in to have a good time.

The North is currently an afterthought, only where large wars spill over to. Change that, and the player base will be happier.

[gedweyignasia]

There is a third option to game vs story:

Experience/Sensation.

All that matters is how well you can feel as your character senses the world, experiences emotions. You don't need a story for that.

I would strongly caution anyone who is considering this approach, because you will feel all of the negative effects that your character experiences very strongly, conflict between characters becomes conflict between players, etc.

This is a very dangerous mindset.

[AgentOrange]

Setback and failure make for better story, sure. But players should cooperate to make compelling stories. If they can't then the least they can do is stay in their lanes and not try to ruin the fun for other players.

Not all conflict in a story is player versus player. There's player versus nature and player versus machine (NPCs?). Those can have players cooperating, but without setbacks the story isn't very interesting in any of those.

Honestly, I don't even give player on player conflict the time of day anymore. Too many sketchy agendas there, and I don't trust other players not to do it in a way that is OOCly enjoyable for everyone.

I meant externally imposed conflict from the world.

[Hoihe]

There is a third option to game vs story:

Experience/Sensation.

All that matters is how well you can feel as your character senses the world, experiences emotions. You don't need a story for that.

I would strongly caution anyone who is considering this approach, because you will feel all of the negative effects that your character experiences very strongly, conflict between characters becomes conflict between players, etc.

This is a very dangerous mindset.

It is the pinnacle of roleplay in my book. I remember in Space Station 13/Baystation 12, there was a non-canon round where a group of crazy twins invaded our space station.

They were kidnapping people, forcibly transferring their minds into their clones and forcing them to fight on their side.

I was playing a detective, lost an arm fighting them in a firefight. Got saved by one of the kidnappees, my character's friend, turning on them and winning us the conflict (but she died in the process).

This was a non-canon round, as all antagonist/conflict rounds are. After the transfer/evac shuttle arrived, it was all retconned as never happening and next round everyone was back to normal as if nothing happened.

People would say that's "shitty and no consequences."

But by losing myself, and embracing my character's emotions... DESPITE KNOWING next round we'll be chilling in the bar with said friend, I broke down in ugly tears and spent an hour crying as that was the emotions my normally guarded detective felt while looking at the coffin of the clones' bodies.

This fact - that even temporary, to be retconed scenarios had immense emotional weight, proves its superiority.

[gedweyignasia]

I think that's more of a problem with the North and UD having been largely neglected. ... The North is currently an afterthought, only where large wars spill over to. Change that, and the player base will be happier.

Can you explain what you mean by this? What issues are there with the North and the UD? Why do these issues disproportionately affect Evil characters? How can these areas be improved to make the playerbase happier?

[gedweyignasia]

It is the pinnacle of roleplay in my book.

I don't disagree, but I would strongly caution people against it because it means the player will feel the negative outcomes of their character very acutely, as I warned. It is very dangerous to the playerbase as a whole: It turns a conflict between characters into a conflict between players.

[Rhifox]

There is a third option to game vs story:

Experience/Sensation.

All that matters is how well you can feel as your character senses the world, experiences emotions. You don't need a story for that.

No. But a story makes those experiences and sensations greater. Everyday domestic affairs is a very boring experience compared to challenging and trying circumstances - and failure - that tugs at the character's emotions. I want to face challenges and threats to my character because that is vastly more fun to react to. I want my leg shaking, my blood boiling, I want to be getting up out of my chair and pacing around my room because the things going on in the RP are just that engrossing.

Calm, peaceful moments are good for unwinding after the big, serious emotions, but it's a pretty dull experience if that's all I get.

[AgentOrange]

I think that's more of a problem with the North and UD having been largely neglected. ... The North is currently an afterthought, only where large wars spill over to. Change that, and the player base will be happier.

Can you explain what you mean by this? What issues are there with the North and the UD? Why do these issues disproportionately affect Evil characters? How can these areas be improved to make the playerbase happier?

I mean that the North is largely neglected by DMs. That's where Soubar, Darkhold, etc. is (hubs for openly evil characters who feel more at home there, because they have a hard time fitting in around the city.) The exception is when a plot gets big enough that we might have bridge attack events, such as the devil and Orcus plots. That's still just an extension of Team Good's plot, though.

How can these areas be improved? By the DMs not giving all the attention to the same old Team Good or city-centric groups, and shifting some of the focus to the North and UD to give Team Evil players their own stuff to get involved in.

Not all the focus, granted. The last thing I want is for any group to feel left out, but there ought to be an even split.

There's a reason Soubar was empty for a while, and it's just a collection of mostly defunct factions in a trenchcoat. I haven't been on in a couple weeks to see if that miraculously changed.

Or I can keep awkwardly barging into Team Good plots because I'm gonna go where I think there's story. Sorry not sorry.

[Hoihe]

There is a third option to game vs story:

Experience/Sensation.

All that matters is how well you can feel as your character senses the world, experiences emotions. You don't need a story for that.

No. But a story makes those experiences and sensations greater. Everyday domestic affairs is a very boring experience compared to challenging and trying circumstances - and failure - that tugs at the character's emotions. I want to face challenges and threats to my character because that is vastly more fun to react to. I want my leg shaking, my blood boiling, I want to be getting up out of my chair and pacing around my room because the things going on in the RP are just that engrossing.

Calm, peaceful moments are good for unwinding after the big, serious emotions, but it's a pretty dull experience if that's all I get.

I suppose I'm an odd one out, for I genuinely enjoyed when DA was active and people gathered in the Jest talking about old stories, sharing native cuisine and just being there.

[[DM] Grinning Death]

I mean that the North is largely neglected by DMs. That's where Soubar, Darkhold, etc. is (hubs for openly evil characters who feel more at home there, because they have a hard time fitting in around the city.) The exception is when a plot gets big enough that we might have bridge attack events, such as the devil and Orcus plots. That's still just an extension of Team Good's plot, though.

How can these areas be improved? By the DMs not giving all the attention to the same old Team Good or city-centric groups, and shifting some of the focus to the North and UD to give Team Evil players their own stuff to get involved in.

Not all the focus, granted. The last thing I want is for any group to feel left out, but there ought to be an even split.

There's a reason Soubar was empty for a while, and it's just a collection of mostly defunct factions in a trenchcoat. I haven't been on in a couple weeks to see if that miraculously changed.

Or I can keep awkwardly barging into Team Good plots because I'm gonna go where I think there's story. Sorry not sorry.

With all due respect, you seem to be making a variety of assumptions about the DM team that are ill-informed. We do in fact run plots in the North, and for non-good groups on a regular basis. We respond to pretty much every player request that we get, as a matter of fact, and we do our best to fulfill each and every one to an extent that's possible.

If you find there is a lack of DM interaction with your group or guild, I'd advise you to please reach out to the DM team and let us know your goals, your attempted means to achieve them, and how you can contribute to their success in the future, if they fail. We'd be happy to work with you.