Meta-rules: Roleplaying within a frame

[Nomadic]

I'm thinking our argument is ending up this way: you see RPGs as games, I see them as collaborative stories.

Wait, what? I have never seen someone so obsessed with focusing on the storytelling aspect of roleplay as Vreeg.

On another note, I don't mind using metarules as a player. I like working with the system and using it to shape my character. My ideas for what my character should be only deal with the introduction. Once the game starts its more fun for me to let the rules take over and dictate what paths my character will take. In other words, I like watching them grow separate of my whims. As I said before though, as a DM I just don't use them too much.

[Ishmayl-Retired]

Yeah, personally, I believe it builds stronger characters when they (and the player) have to make changes based on events and circumstances beyond their control.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

....I believe it builds stronger characters when they (and the player) have to make changes based on events and circumstances beyond their control.

Why?

[Nomadic]

....I believe it builds stronger characters when they (and the player) have to make changes based on events and circumstances beyond their control.

Why?

See my post above for an idea as to why. To simplify it though, some of us like to react to changes to our character that we didn't have in mind rather than get upset at them. We like the surprise that comes with it and the challenge of having to change our roleplay style to fit. The style makes for a more organic character development.

[Superfluous Crow]

Because every player in the game doesn't just follow their own way or the way they have decided upon as a group. Instead the game can take unexpected turns and the characters will have to come to terms with things that might never have come up if they had had their way with it.
It's a question of whether you want to have a game that is average all the time or varies between good and bad. (okay, not sure that last sentence makes sense to you but felt like it made some sense to me).

[Nomadic]

Because every player in the game doesn't just follow their own way or the way they have decided upon as a group. Instead the game can take unexpected turns and the characters will have to come to terms with things that might never have come up if they had had their way with it.
It's a question of whether you want to have a game that is average all the time or varies between good and bad. (okay, not sure that last sentence makes sense to you but felt like it made some sense to me).

Indeed, a good example of this would be a game I played a fair bit ago. I had a Dwarven Cleric of Thor who picked up a piece of jewelry without thinking anything of it. The jewelry turned out to be an artifact that stole his soul and sealed it away within itself. The DM was expecting me to rush and find a way to get my soul back (since if I died in this state I would become a lich). I couldn't do that though, my cleric would never think of himself over his friend, who was currently in alot of danger. I was playing dangerous but I needed to stick to my characters mindset. Unfortunately in the process of helping my ally I fell down a huge shaft and died. Viola Dwarven Lich Cleric of Thor. I had never expected that to happen when I first created the character. But when it did happen, it ended up making a very awesome story. Tales spread far and wide of a mighty force of good among the undead. As a good cleric of course I had to be careful with how I channeled my magic, but it was a blast. After the story ended the DM even said some things about how at Ragnarok (the world was Norse focused) my immortal and now epic cleric would be destroyed fighting alongside Thor with the burning of the world tree.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

To simplify it......some of us like to react to changes to our character that we didn't have in mind rather than get upset at them. We like the surprise that comes with it and the challenge of having to change our roleplay style to fit. The style makes for a more organic character development.

So you don't care about the work you put into the characters, you're playing a game of "improv this thing I give you"?  

Because every player in the game doesn't just follow their own way or the way they have decided upon as a group. Instead the game can take unexpected turns and the characters will have to come to terms with things that might never have come up if they had had their way with it.

Again, so the characters and the work the player puts into them don't matter?  That's what I reading because you're saying you'd rather that the characters be altered by the world, which means what came before is now in some amount irrelevant.

Indeed, a good example of this would be a game I played a fair bit ago. I had a Dwarven Cleric of Thor who picked up a piece of jewelry without thinking anything of it. The jewelry turned out to be an artifact that stole his soul and sealed it away within itself. The DM was expecting me to rush and find a way to get my soul back (since if I died in this state I would become a lich). I couldn't do that though, my cleric would never think of himself over his friend, who was currently in alot of danger. I was playing dangerous but I needed to stick to my characters mindset. Unfortunately in the process of helping my ally I fell down a huge shaft and died. Viola Dwarven Lich Cleric of Thor. I had never expected that to happen when I first created the character. But when it did happen, it ended up making a very awesome story. Tales spread far and wide of a mighty force of good among the undead. As a good cleric of course I had to be careful with how I channeled my magic, but it was a blast. After the story ended the DM even said some things about how at Ragnarok (the world was Norse focused) my immortal and now epic cleric would be destroyed fighting alongside Thor with the burning of the world tree.

Well in that example you weren't forced to change: you got to keep playing the character the way you felt like playing him.

For me it all boils down to this: I have no interest in wasting time working on something that is then going to be changed without me getting a say as to whether or not it's changed and how.  You can get me to play in a game that goes the other way, but I'm not going to put effort into building the fluff of my character.  I'm just not that interested.

[Superfluous Crow]

You're still playing the same character no matter how many meta-rules you employ for god's sake! Everybody changes over time. And so should characters. Your characters might be awesomely crafted down to the most minute detail but they are just as one-dimensional as characters in a bad crime novel if they stay that way forever. And Nomadic's example is a good example of what we are all talking about. None of us ever said anything about scripts or removing free will or the personality of the character. It was all about choices and changes to begin with.
Some of the best roleplaying experiences i had was when my character was influenced in some way.

[Ishmayl-Retired]

....I believe it builds stronger characters when they (and the player) have to make changes based on events and circumstances beyond their control.

Why?

Because that's how reality works.  The things that define you are not your reactions to what you're prepared for, but your reactions to what you never expected.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the GM should steamroller all the players ambitions, but seriously, if you have fun (in gaming) by never having to deal with something out of your control, then Vreeg's previous statement about "playing games with a save point" seems pretty à propos to me.

So you don't care about the work you put into the characters, you're playing a game of "improv this thing I give you"?

How does "willing to adapt to change that I never saw coming" translate to "not caring about the work I've put into the characters?"  If I build a music business from scratch, work lovingly on it for 10 years, and then see that we're coming into an economic freefall, I need to change the way I do business to survive.  "Not caring" would be crying about how these changes shouldn't be happening to me because I didn't plan on them, and thus, I won't abide by their turns.  "Caring" would be making the best of every situation, not just the ones that benefit my preconceived notions of how things should always run.

[Ishmayl-Retired]

(Added more to my post, in case you're posting while I was editing ;))

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

Because that's how reality works.

I have never understood the reason for this statement in the context of anything fictional: if it isn't real, why should it be made like reality?  If you like real things so much, why are you spending time dealing with something that isn't real?

The things that define you are not your reactions to what you're prepared for, but your reactions to what you never expected.

The problem is I'm no fun if something I didn't expect happens: I stop doing anything and wait for instructions.  If it's not something I expect how am I supposed to know what to do?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the GM should steamroller all the players ambitions, but seriously, if you have fun (in gaming) by never having to deal with something out of your control, then Vreeg's previous statement about "playing games with a save point" seems pretty à propos to me.

Actually it isn't: anything with a save point has very little -- generally no -- opportunity for exercising one's control.

[Superfluous Crow]

Hmm, yeah, me and Ish posted at the same time so you (SCMP) didn't see my last post (or maybe you just decided not to comment)

...  If it's not something I expect how am I supposed to know what to do?

Now i understand you don't like comparing fact to fiction (personally i prefer an equal mix), but you have to be faced with surprises on occassion yourself? Can't you transfer those experiences to your character? It's not that i mind your gaming style, it just seems to lack some "challenge" (at least, that added bit you get from non-control games).
And all roleplaying games will inevitably always include reality in some way. I'm pretty sure you would hate playing in a world that hadn't nothing to do with reality as much as everybody else would. Although a world that resembles reality entirely would be just as boring (or at least unneccessary).    

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

You're still playing the same character no matter how many meta-rules you employ for god's sake!

No they aren't: if anything has changed about them they aren't the same person.

Everybody changes over time. And so should characters.

Why should characters act like real people when they aren't?  And if they change over time shouldn't it be based upon the choices of the player rather than some condition imposed upon them?

Your characters might be awesomely crafted down to the most minute detail but they are just as one-dimensional as characters in a bad crime novel if they stay that way forever.

And changing them without careful consideration for what the change means and whether or not it is a good idea for the character is better?

And Nomadic's example is a good example of what we are all talking about. None of us ever said anything about scripts or removing free will or the personality of the character. It was all about choices and changes to begin with.

Well when you keep talking about how the character must react to the situation rather than the action of the character being decided by the player, and said choices being very narrow, it sounds very much like you're not talking about choices.

Some of the best roleplaying experiences i had was when my character was influenced in some way.

And all my best roleplaying experiences have been when I've had complete control over my character.  And that's because I know that the work's mine and that if changes happen to the character they have been carefully considered and are appropriate.

How does "willing to adapt to change that I never saw coming" translate to "not caring about the work I've put into the characters?"  If I build a music business from scratch, work lovingly on it for 10 years, and then see that we're coming into an economic freefall, I need to change the way I do business to survive.  "Not caring" would be crying about how these changes shouldn't be happening to me because I didn't plan on them, and thus, I won't abide by their turns.  "Caring" would be making the best of every situation, not just the ones that benefit my preconceived notions of how things should always run.

I see "not caring" as "not giving a damn what happens".  If you hand over control of your character to someone you know is going to alter them somehow that seems to me like you don't care about them.

[Matt Larkin (author)]

Okay, a few laughs here and there. Sometimes I'm not sure whether you're serious, or just trying to drive debate for the sake of conversation.

To some extent, I agree with you, though. I think you just take it too far. I had a ST once that got a little free with the dominate in a V:tM game. It got to the point that I was make few to no meaningful decisions in the game, at which point I wondered why he wanted me instead of an NPC.

But to equate such a thing to a mechanic like LC's "compels" is a poor reductio absurdum.

[Elven Doritos]

No they aren't: if anything has changed about them they aren't the same person.

Why should characters act like real people when they aren't?[/quote]And if they change over time shouldn't it be based upon the choices of the player rather than some condition imposed upon them?[/quote]And changing them without careful consideration for what the change means and whether or not it is a good idea for the character is better?[/quote]Well when you keep talking about how the character must react to the situation rather than the action of the character being decided by the player, and said choices being very narrow, it sounds very much like you're not talking about choices.[/quote]4: a number and variety to choose among[/b] <a plan with a wide choice of options>5: care in selecting6: a grade of meat between prime and good

And all my best roleplaying experiences have been when I've had complete control over my character. And that's because I know that the work's mine and that if changes happen to the character they have been carefully considered and are appropriate.

I see "not caring" as "not giving a damn what happens". If you hand over control of your character to someone you know is going to alter them somehow that seems to me like you don't care about them.[/quote]

That's ridiculous. Just... no. Some people are willing to contribute to a group effort with established rules to improve the group experience. That doesn't mean they don't care about their character.