test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Roleplaying and the Foundry
karitr
Member Posts: 662 Bounty Hunter
I've commented on this a couple of times and thought it worthy of a discussion thread.
Firstly, I consider myself a roleplayer; when choosing video games, RPG is the first genre I look for, I play table-top (though very infrequently now) and I used to enjoy LARP. In all of those mediums I could be playing freeform with a character of my creation or one given to me by the game creators/DM.
Which leads me to the point I want to make here. Cut Foundry authors some slack.
The Foundry doesn't lend itself to creating stories that can fit all races , gender, personalities, religious leanings. Instead of worrying that 'your' character has been referred to as male while your avatar is female, why not try roleplaying the character that was created by the author? it's their story after all.
And if you don't believe that's roleplaying, I'll counter your statement with the fact that Planescape: Torment tops many "Best RPG game ever" lists, trumping even the mighty BG2.
I'm sure we all have a deep affection for the characters we rolled up and developed ourselves, but that doesn't mean we can't have the same affection for The Nameless One or Geralt of Rivia, or enjoy roleplaying them any less - as those 'Best' lists prove.
So just let the authors tell their story and if the best means of doing that is to have you play their version of the protagonist, go with it. You can do it, you're a roleplayer after all
It wouldn't be much of a discussion if I just laid down the 'RP Law' as viewed by KariTR :rolleyes:, so in the name of debate, I would be very interested to hear from:
- authors who do try to create a freeform roleplay environment for the player character and how they work around the limitations of the Foundry mechanic.
- players and/or authors who disagree with my stance on what roleplaying is.
- any souless goon who didn't cry when The Nameless one [SPOILERS!].
Firstly, I consider myself a roleplayer; when choosing video games, RPG is the first genre I look for, I play table-top (though very infrequently now) and I used to enjoy LARP. In all of those mediums I could be playing freeform with a character of my creation or one given to me by the game creators/DM.
Which leads me to the point I want to make here. Cut Foundry authors some slack.
The Foundry doesn't lend itself to creating stories that can fit all races , gender, personalities, religious leanings. Instead of worrying that 'your' character has been referred to as male while your avatar is female, why not try roleplaying the character that was created by the author? it's their story after all.
And if you don't believe that's roleplaying, I'll counter your statement with the fact that Planescape: Torment tops many "Best RPG game ever" lists, trumping even the mighty BG2.
I'm sure we all have a deep affection for the characters we rolled up and developed ourselves, but that doesn't mean we can't have the same affection for The Nameless One or Geralt of Rivia, or enjoy roleplaying them any less - as those 'Best' lists prove.
So just let the authors tell their story and if the best means of doing that is to have you play their version of the protagonist, go with it. You can do it, you're a roleplayer after all
It wouldn't be much of a discussion if I just laid down the 'RP Law' as viewed by KariTR :rolleyes:, so in the name of debate, I would be very interested to hear from:
- authors who do try to create a freeform roleplay environment for the player character and how they work around the limitations of the Foundry mechanic.
- players and/or authors who disagree with my stance on what roleplaying is.
- any souless goon who didn't cry when The Nameless one [SPOILERS!].
Post edited by karitr on
0
Comments
Edit: The main point that I'm trying to make is...especially with the foundry limitations, there's technically no wrong or right way to do a lot of it. Doing it, however, will increase the enjoyment of some while decreasing it for others.
Threads: Part 1: Rising of the Dragons (NW-DNGIC6AJC) | Part 2: Abyssal Pursuit (NW-DESQ9HQAZ)
There's no need to call the player character any gender specific pronoun in any quest. That's just bad quest design, IMO.
I've actually seen a couple of people do it more for the sake of a roleplay setting, so I wouldn't personally jump to that conclusion.
Threads: Part 1: Rising of the Dragons (NW-DNGIC6AJC) | Part 2: Abyssal Pursuit (NW-DESQ9HQAZ)
We have the [nickname] tag, and plenty of pronouns that aren't gender-specific. It's easy to get around making that mistake.
I am also a role player and a role player for life. Although I find RP Servers these days to be kinda lack luster and they always get the least amount of players within the community which is why I have now stepped away from the servers. I love to RP but kinda sucks when the populace is very small.
In honest the author of the foundry sets the narrative and tone of their quest and if they wish for you to play the part of a woman, or a beast of the land (say a werewolf) that is their design. But, not many authors do this, I think from a foundry perspective the first one I played was last night on the stream where I was given a family that had been murdered and I needed to avenge.
When I see things in a quest I am playing with wording such as 'he' or 'you guys' and I am playing as a woman or soloing, this wouldn't be an avenue of role play because it is just an oversight by the author for their quest. Just let them know in the review that's all. I don't think the author should get any flack for it mind you, nor should it have their rating downgraded.
It's just one of those things, men will typically say 'he' or 'him' and women will say 'her' or 'she' because they are setting the scene through their eyes. It happens a lot, so, give them a break. It's fine, just, auto-correct it in your head and don't let it deviate you from the story being told. Unless of course your playing a 'he' and the story involves you giving birth...
This post might be erratic. I just woke up haha.
This is true in some regards, but not in all. Essentially role playing is what it says on the tin. You take a role and play it. This could be one you made, or one that was given. In DnD there were a thing such as pre-made character sheets which did all the character creation, back story for them.
Also, Planescape Torment as mentioned in this thread is considered one of the best cult RPG's of all time because the template of the nameless one was quite versatile and well written, but it was still an actor you were given to role play with and not one you personally created.
It is mainly down to preference, I have no problem with my own character or a pre-made character, I just love RP
I agree with all of you here, but like Tsumoro see misplaced pronouns as an oversight rather than 'bad design'. Hence part of the reason for my 'cut the authors some slack' comment.
I think if you're able to widen your own definition of what role-playing is, then to a varying extent it is always possible to add your own touch to a pre-made character. For example, in the original Diablo I remember being very disappointed when faced with the rather bland roles of warrior, sorc and rogue (with no gender choice, if memory serves). I chose a warrior and to give him more depth I roleplayed him as a paladin who wouldn't dream of disturbing the rest of the dead by opening their tombs. And hells there was a lot of tombs to (not) open.
*Nods* I have played a few Foundry quests where the author has gone to great length to provide options for the player-character but I have rarely, if at all, seen it done well. That is no reflection on the skill of the author, rather the restrictions imposed by the toolset.
I agree with this all evidently, but the last line is exactly the message I wanted to get out to players.
And to some extent to authors too. If you have a story that defines the character, don't be afraid to tell that story simply because some players have a narrower view of roleplaying than others.
What I'm curious about is which one of those will the general populace consider to be role playing when it comes to the new foundry tagging system.
I feel as long as I explain in my quest description that you will be playing the role of another and that it is a narrative then I'm properly giving "die-hard" roleplayers fair warning. This came up in the stream yesterday, but in Zovya and Tsumoro's defense once Sam Elliot (swoon) read them the quest description they were totally onboard and became invested. Tsu was reading my dialogue the exact way I envisioned it to be read and had the reactions to antagonists that I expected. Translation: He was invested and it made my quest sound like tragic play. Perfection.
There's only so much you can do in the Foundry enviroment. I tend to shy away from the standard "go to said tavern and accept quest." I'd much rather give you some things to care about and see if you bite off on what I'm feeding. So far it's worked. I'm no George R. R. Martin, but the response to my story has been generally positive.
To each their own though. You ultimately play what you enjoy. All I ask is that you don't downrate someone based on your ideology of what roleplay is. So far, for me, once I put up my disclaimer it's been all good. The couple of days before the disclaimer I got one starred twice. Players will understand most of the time (crosses fingers) as long as you warn them beforehand.
-Delrachnid
Revenge of the Fallen
Only the Guilty Run
Feel weird promoting in this kind of thread, but just in case you wanted to put into perspective what I'm talking about. If you search by my user name it'll pull up my campaign with both of those quests in it.
Great point runebane.
I would definitely use the 'roleplay' tag in circumstances where meaningful skill checks or consequential options are provided.
As a sub-header within an already RPG game, I would personally have no issue with also tagging as roleplay a quest whose predefined character has had, as Tsu said, an emotional impact on me. Especially given the confines of the Foundry toolset.
But then there is the other side of the coin which Delrachnid mentions. If I felt tagging something as roleplay would be generally detrimental to the author's quest, despite being relevant to me, why bother? I might just stick with the 'story' tag, in those circumstances; we'll see.
EDIT: I'm glad you posted the quests Del as they are perfect examples of an actual pre-defined character as opposed to a misplaced pronoun. Any attempt at roleplaying our characters within your story would never work, obviously, but it doesn't mean we can't roleplay the character you have provided us with...as Tsumoro demonstrated perfectly
And while a disclaimer in the overview isn't one of my personal requirements, it seems a sensible thing to do and especially so after the tags are added.
Being a nice person (well most of the time), it's difficult for me to take the "meaner" options, though i think it's kind of neat when authors give us those options. I always take the kindest option available, because that's just how my characters roll.
One of my favorite quests puts me inside the memories of a man, and i become him as i re-enact his memories. That was just kewl. (A Dying Man's Request: NW-DGAEJTH7O).
But, as an author, i'm either lazy, or hard headed, or some combination of the two.
[UGC] Kolde Acres (Discontinued)
On the other hand, I have seen some potentially great Foundry stories get all bent out of shape as the author, working in a toolset that is against them, tries to cram it with roleplay opportunity for the 'die-hards'.
@zbkolde: sounds to me you aren't roleplaying, you're just being your own sweet self
Oh and if the latter sounds like an insult, you should just read my experience of "Tired of Being a Hero". I had to be in a really bad mood to take that role on :mad:;)
Though I do get some strange feedback with my quests. In the Campaign, "The Assassin Chronicles", you play the role of an assassin. But I get feedback that tells me they wouldn't take the hit, or they would rather kill one of the deceptive main storyline NPCs. It's funny to me because, while I try to give the player good/evil choices in the game, I can't create a world where the player can do whatever they want. You're playing the role of an assassin, either play the quest, or don't.
My point is, even when a game lets you play the role you want, it really isn't. It's just a level or degree of difference. If you have a game where you kill zombies, but the developer also lets you bake brownies, BAM! extra choices for roleplay. But you still have to kill the zombies. Your ultimate roleplay choice begins in real life when you choose to play the game or not.
Zovya I would love to role play with you some time! I have an idea in mind. I would be a rather handsome patient who has just 3 days to live. You, would play a very frustrated house wife in the nursing profession....
You see where I am taking this?
But all joking aside I am actually looking forward to our DnD session coming soon, out of all the RP I have done in life I have never played a DnD game.
My RP experience comes from a game called Nexus: Kingdoms of the Winds which everything is RP based. Everything from the classes, tutors, mentors, royal family, merchants etc are all played by other players. It was a game of political intrigue when gods walked the earth and culling was needed of the mythic beasts. Fun times!
I really hope with time the foundry keeps growing and growing and introduces a lot more RP based mechanics... like... I would LOVE and I mean LOOOOOOOOVVVVVVVE to be able to sit in a freaking chair!
I think I follow you.... You'd want me to pull the plug, so you die quickly rather than days of agony. I could pull that off convincingly enough.
Zovya I have to wonder why my affections towards you always end with my untimely death. I go to the shops for you, I get hit by a car by a bandito masked woman. I pick up your laundry, I get pushed inside, I had you a letter of quests, you poison me. Wheres the love woman!
As a Dungeon Master, I'll go ahead and tell you what to expect from tabletop D&D. You get out of it what you put into it, no matter what system you use. I used 4th, and while a lot of people complain that 4th was all about combat, and didn't have enough role-playing elements in it, I had no problem doing anything I wanted to do with it. You have a lot more freedom when it comes to table-top D&D than you do any MMO or video game. However, when it comes to combat, expect lots of dice rolling, and tedious mathematical calculations. That is, unless the DM does like me, and gives you plenty of stalagmites and other environmental hazards with which you can use to auto-kill whatever giant monster you're fighting.