On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
> This to me is a counsel of perfection. There is some player out there
> who can face consistently very difficult scenarios and not suffer any
> loss of her ability to roleplay. But it isn't me. I have been playing
> long enough to know that. Maybe I am a fool. I thought, though, that
> we had a kind of agreement not to spend our time on ad hominem?
First, I think your problem here may have something to do with the
fragility of immersion, which is why I have a problem doing the same
thing. I can play out tactical combat effectively, but when I'm playing
out tactical combat in that way, I'm playing it like a board game, I'm not
thinking in character. As a result of the immersion stopping, the
role-playing stops, too. That's the part Brian might be missing here.
It's not a matter of finding time. It's a matter of precise tactical
thinking suppressing the way in which you role-play.
Second, but I do think there is some merit to Brian's suggestion to find
time for role-playing, though not maybe in such a direct and blunt way.
An overly simple way to do that is to spend less time on combat in the
game (though that's difficult with D&D). Perhaps another way to look at
it is to find ways to switch modes during combat. There, I think your
technique of running multiple characters increases the problem
substantially. The way I maintain role-playing during tactical combat is
to spend the time while other players are dealing with their characters to
make a tactical decision and then do some thinking in character. That
option may not be open to you.
Third, part of the solution for you might be to use combat systems that
rely less on the player's ability to succeed and more on the character's
abilities as written down and dice. From these examples, examples you
gave years ago, and my own experience trying to both immerse and think
tactically, tactical thinking often happens at the player level rather
than in character. There are two ways to rely more on the character's
abilities. The first is to figure out how to think tactically in
character. I can't do that very well and suspect you might not be able
to, either. The second is to abstract combat so that it's resolved more
heavily with character abilities as reflected on the character sheeet and
less heavily on the player's ability to tactically manipulate the
character. Basically, if thinking tactically damages immersion and thus
role-playing, tactical thinking should be reduced and perhaps systems like
D&D, which are heavily tactical, should be avoided.
Finally, you could always resort to hero points or other metagame
mechanics to keep your PCs alive. While they can cause immersion
problems, there are ways to make them more palatable, especially if they
aren't always used. After all, the reason why characters in books,
movies, and TV shows survive one near miss after another is that the
author decides that they will live by fiat. Ways to reconcile hero points
with an immersive perspective include playing characters that don't think
about those things very much (that works very well for me) and playing
characters that believe in luck, destiny, or divine protection.
> Next time I won't do it. There exists a perfect player who can keep
> roleplaying excellently through many experiences like this, but I'm not
> her. I play for fun, and this is not enough fun.
I think there is an implied association between non-optimal play and
role-playing here. And, yes, I think that's a problem with published
challenge-oriented D&D modules because they don't expect the players to
make sub-optimal decisions. I don't think role-playing has to necessarily
imply sub-optimal decisions, because one can role-play a competent
combatant that values optimal decisions in character. But that does
reduce the range of characters that you can play in such a game.
> I also stop experimenting with new tactics. It's too dangerous to try
> anything new if every scenario is close to the killing edge. So I stop
> learning, and eventually I play very badly. We had this in SCAP. At
> 8th level my PCs were no more competent than they had been at 5th;
partly
> because I had not had time to learn to play them, but partly also
because
> without easier scenarios, there was no op****tunity for experimentation
and
> refinement of tactics. I could not afford to try something new that
might
> not work out.
Here is where I think you should probably make use of retcons. Play
combats more than once if you have to. That's very similar to how video
games allow players to experiment. The player saves the game, wades into
the encounter, and if it goes badly, they replay it. I know you've
experimented both with talking through role-playing scenes to anticipate
where they'll go and replaying scenes that go badly. Have you tried that
with combat in D&D?
> <sigh> What this conversation is doing for me is constantly rubbing
> salt in wounds. I wish I were a stronger person and able to shrug it
> off, but right now I'm not. I feel as though I'm being blamed
(personally
> and as a representative of a group) for the Decline of Modern
Roleplaying
> and probably the Loss of the Heroic Ideal, and it hurts.
My comments on heroism have a context that wasn't directed at you and have
a lot more to do with the problems of translating fictional heroism into a
role-playing games. Real heroes like Sgt. York usually survive one heroic
situation and then never have another one again. A lot of would-be heroes
die, as to people who try to repeat heroic acts over and over again. In
fiction, the heroes survive constant danger because they have script
immunity. But real heroism requires a risk of loss. Follow me for a
moment because I'm not trying to condemn you or anyone else.
The man who recently saved a person in New York City who had fallen onto
the subway tracks wasn't put on David Letterman because he helped the man
while he was having seizures on the subway platform (which he did). That
probably wouldn't have warranted mention even in the local papers. He was
a hero for jumping onto the tracks in front on a train after the man fell
onto the tracks and opting to risk that he could fit under the train to
save the man rather than jumping out of the way of the train. If there
was no very real risk, the sort that deters most sane people from doing
anything, he wouldn't have been a hero. In fact, beyond the danger, a key
part of heroism is that it's not something anyone and everyone would do.
That said, (A) everything a character does doesn't have to be heroic, (B)
there is nothing wrong with finding out ways to tilt the odds in your
favor, and (C) a person can be a good guy doing im****tant things without
being a hero.
To the first point, video games follow (or at least they used to follow) a
pattern where the player would defeat hoards of easy-to-defeat monsters in
order ot face a very hard to defeat enemy (the boss) at the end. A game
might have thousands of easy to defeat monsters and only a handful of
bosses. In such a situation, killing the little monsters is not heroic.
Facing the boss at the end is, because that's where the character has a
good chance to die. Translated into a role-playing game, the idea is to
put the player up against a few powerful "bosses" which give them the
op****tunity to be heroic. So every encounter isn't heroic. Only a few
are. The characters are still heroes but don't face a TPK at every turn.
And as an added bonus, those small easy-to-defeat enemies show that the
characters have the skill and stature to face the "boss" and give them
plenty of practice to prepare for that face-off. In fact, there are
plenty of action movies, including James Bond movies, that seem to follow
a similar model.
To the second point, there us nothing unheroic about getting an advantage,
figuring out a weakness, or even sneaking past a powerful enemy.
Outwitting an opponent is just a legitimate as outfighting them. And
there is nothing wrong with a character robbing themselves of a moment of
true life-threatening heroism becaue they figured out a way to reduce
their risks and achieve their goals at the same time. Potential heroes
don't have to be stupid and risk their lives without need.
Finally, there are plenty of admirable people in this world who do good
things without necessarily being heroes. While the fighter pilot who
blows through a column of enemy troops without any personal risk might not
be a hero in the strictest sense, they are performing an im****tant service
to those fighting on the ground for their side. In other words, so long
as the characters are doing something im****tant, who cares if they are
real heroes or not? So they don't earn a medal or get their picture on
the front page of a paper? That still doesn't mean that the characters
can't be interesting to play and do im****tant things. Every character
doesn't have to be a hero in the sense of risking their lives for others.
Now there is a school of thought that calls every soldier, Marine, sailor,
pilot, police officer, firefighter, etc. a hero. While there is some
merit to that and I can understand the sentiment, it simply leaves us in
need of another term to differentiate the guys who actually risk their
lives for others.
As to my roller coaster analogy, I made it for a reason. Most people want
to feel that they are in danger but far fewer people want to really be in
danger. That's why more people ride roller coasters than do things like
base jumping, cave diving, or climbing Mount Everest. There is nothing
wrong with riding a roller coaster and enjoying the feeling of danger
while minimizing risks. Most people aren't real danger-seekers. But a
roller-coaster is not real danger. Similarly, there is nothing wrong with
playing a character that feels "heroic" but really isn't taking any risks,
but it's not real heroism.
That many people want that rather than real risk-taking heroism is not
really surprising since real heroism often isn't much fun for the hero,
all too often ends badly for the hero, and involves risks that most sane
people are not willing to take with their own life. But having played
with a soft-touch GM who all but refused to kill PCs, I think that the
elimination of risk robs me, personally, from experiencing more real
moments of heroism (or the choice not the be a hero) in character. Such
choices are not "fun" in the classic sense but I do enjoy the emotional
intensity that comes from them and feel a bit cheated if the GM takes that
away from me. YMMV.
> I didn't really expect this response from .advocacy. Elsewhere, yes,
> but not here. I think I have to beg off. I might come back in 6 months
> or so when things improve, or I might try ruthlessly killfiling everyone
> who jumps on me. But I am not able to deal with the status quo. I've
> got severe issues with depression in RL and I need not to be adding more
> pain to them.
While I think you have valid reasons to worry about being jumped on (and
I've tried to be sensitive to that myself), that's not how I took this
discussion. And to be honest, there are some things I haven't said here
that might sound critical of what you are doing because I didn't want to
come off as insulting. But if it helps your depression any, if I'm part
of the problem, I'd rather leave than have you leave. And I don't think
Brian is exaggerating when he says, "you're the primary reason I have ever
read this group". So if you have a problem feeling like you are being
ganged up on, particularly by any of the old-timers, just say so and I'm
sure they'll back off or and a few might leave rather than have you leave.
John Morrow
|
