Roleplay Musings (Xat rambles)

[Xatarias]

Hey everyone! Seems like the RP forums have undergone a bit of a renaissance these past few months. There are lots of threads and even more people churning out awesome posts. It's been fun reading everyone's games and I'm absolutely wowed by the quality that seems commonplace now.

Given the higher number of active players, I thought it would be a good opportunity to gather some data in regards to everyone's roleplaying experience here. I've got my own rules-set for games I run here on the forums and I adjust it constantly. Various forms of my notes have been passed here and there, but I'm looking to do a major overhaul with the average Fen Forum player in mind.

So with out further ado, I'd like to ask some questions of anyone gracious enough to respond. You can answer as many (or as few) as you like and, while I'm targeting this toward active players, newbies are absolutely welcome to chime in.

1. What appeals to you more, 1-on-1s, or group RPs? Do you like something in particular about one or the other?
2. What level of complexity do you like your system to have? Do you feel like more rules means more options or simply gets in the way of story telling?
3. Would you rather have your character's abilities be defined by a few stats, or really specific stats and lots of special abilities you use at will. Something in between?
4. What level of randomness do you like your games to have? Is it more fun for your characters to be consistent, or at the mercy of the die roll?

 

[Slemmandre]

1. I'm a big fan of group RPs. They can get complicated if they become too big, but more players means more opportunities for character chemistry, which I'm always a sucker for. 1-on-1s are great too, but you need a skilled DM to make the NPCs of the RP feel genuine and enriching.
2. It depends a lot on the complexity of the RP universe. If it's something that turns reality completely on its head, then I think it's helpful to set out some clear-cut rules about what can and can't be done. Then again, there's definitely such a thing as excessive, but a few solid guidelines can really get the ball rolling simply and smoothly.
3. As much as I love the potential to make characters truly unique, simple stat systems work just fine, and specific ones can just get confusing for everyone involved. Special abilities are great. I have absolutely no problem with the thought of having lots of those. Pre-determined playable classes with unique abilities that RP'ers can pick from are incredibly enticing for me.
4. I kind of like the potential of getting screwed or saved by a roll, but sometimes it can just be nonsensical. If the DM can find a way to make unlikely dice roll scenarios plausible in the story, then I have no opposition. At the same time though, it's nice to have that sense of certainty that you can consistently take down certain enemies, and it's up to the DM to draw that line in the context of the story.

 

[Weiss Ritter]

1. Well, the way I see it is that more players equals more moving parts, so to speak. They can contribute more amazing characters to bounce development and ideas off of or even help lighten the DM's load by writing for certain areas or NPCs. They can also add to the DM's workload or slow threaten the entire RP if they suddenly need to drop out or disappear without warning-though I suppose you could argue that the same can happen in a one-on-one and with multiple players you aren't guaranteed to have to lose that entire plot. Plus there can be pacing issues, like if you want two characters to have a character developing conversation but doing so might leave everyone else involved and searching for something else to do for a bit.

Overall, I think multiple players can add a lot, you just need to be aware of the risks and try to plan accordingly.

2. I haven't actually had the chance to play with more complex systems, but as far as forum RP goes I'm inclined to favor simplicity. Forum RP can be slow enough at times without people struggling to grasp a ruleset or debating over whether or not it's unbalanced. For me at least, it's the writing and not the dicerolling that draws me here.

3. I think I prefer broad, simple stat systems, although I can understand adapting and expanding upon them depending on the particulars of the setting or the characters being played. Specific/special abilities seem almost like a straightjacket to me since, unless you have a complex RPG battle system, they narrowly define what your character can do and when compared to more general-purpose stats that you can use your imagination with via writing.

4. I agree with Slemmandre. It can be incredibly frustrating/demoralizing to see a character you intended to be a paragon of martial, intellectual, or social prowess utterly fail at their own specialty because the dice screwed them over. At the same time, an absolute guarantee of success even in things that are the character's element can be kind of boring and the random chance overall really can make things interesting and filled with tension. Sometimes, improbably failures can even lead to really fun and unexpected developments!

That said, yes, I do prefer systems that weight things so that a super-soldier is very unlikely to fail at their specialty unless it's contested by someone at least competent in that arena as well. Also, if a character does fail at something they probably "should" have succeeded at going by their stats or nature, I'd prefer to write it as more more misfortune than outright failure within the context of the writing anyway. A master swordsman getting downed by a novice because it really was a completely lucky low that only happened because the ground gave way at the worst possible time or a master thief not quite getting a completely normal lock open before the guards come around the corner as opposed to prodigious skill and years of experience vanishing in a poof of derp.

 

[Archangel99]

1. I prefer 1-on-1s. It's just easier for the GM to develop a storyline if there's only one character. But then again, I'm usually the player and not the DM, but from my experience... I'd say one on one is definitely easier. I can handle the NPCs easily because they usually end up sticking to the PC for the rest of the RP or at least, most of it. In case of multiplayer RPs, I have to develop multiple characters for more than one person, and theeen I kinda start missing details and stuff.
2. I try to keep it simple. Rules make it confusing for the player and even me, sometimes.
3. The fewer the better. I can't accommodate every single stat. Some races may have different stats, but that's only in special cases.
4. Hmm... I like it sorta random. Dice rolls are fun! Especially for a sometimes-sadist like me. Except sometimes, I don't tell them when I'm doing a dice roll. And I usually set my own parameters, of course.

 

[Ecnalab]

1. The right number of players in a role-play really depends on what kind of story the GM wants to tell. I prefer games with two to three people in them because it lets you focus more closely on a, relatively, small set of desires, preferences, and of course kinks, while still giving you as the GM the security of not having to drop the story if one person has to drop out for whatever reason. That said, if you can find one other person to consistently role play with, it really lets a feeling of familiarity develop with the other person, that you don't necessarily get from a group.

2. I feel that less is more when it comes to forum role-plays. Unless all the people involved are veteran players of the system you plan to use, throwing a big complex rules set at the players is a good way to intimidate them; especially if they're a bunch of people you've never played with before.

3. A few stats with lots of easily remembered abilities allows for interesting narrative while keeping the players from running wild in the story. I find that the Dungeon-World ruleset works well for this.

4. Randomness is a hard thing to quantify, but think there should be some in any role-play just to keep the players on their toes.

 

[AubreyC]

1 Coming from a forum rp website that had many group rps, it is a bit difficult to come to Fenoxo rp forums and see so many 1 on 1's. Groups allow experienced and new rpers not to feel so left out of the great rp community here and provides a wealth of opportunity for people to jump in. With that said I prefer group rps and would love to see more on Fenoxo. I'm not dissing 1 on 1's though because I know they can help two rpers grow closer to one another and assure that there is content aplenty for the both of them. But all in all I prefer groups rps and would like to see more in the rp section.

2 I like for the rules to be strict but not overly so. Like, I want rules that give a world integrity and not so loose that things seem just overly goofy and nothing is set in stone.

4 I like for players to be able to make their own decisions but have a die roll to make sure things turn out how they want or don't want. It adds a bit of challenge to a rp session and can be more fun from what I've seen.

 

[Woider]

• What appeals to you more, 1-on-1s, or group RPs? Do you like something in particular about one or the other?

• What level of complexity do you like your system to have? Do you feel like more rules means more options or simply gets in the way of story telling?

• Would you rather have your character's abilities be defined by a few stats, or really specific stats and lots of special abilities you use at will. Something in between?

• What level of randomness do you like your games to have? Is it more fun for your characters to be consistent, or at the mercy of the die roll?

1. In most cases, I prefer it being done with a group, and with RP between 2 people, I prefer it being private rather than public. And as a rule of thumb for myself, the more time players interact with each other, as opposed to NPCs, the better. (Doesn't mean no NPCs, though.)
2. Depends on the setting and focus of the RP. If your focus is dungeon crawling, then you should probably use a system designed for such a roleplay, whereas something with a more player-interaction focus can wholly avoid systems.
3. Probably the middle-ground. The more abilities and numbers you have to track on word docs and the like, the less time you actually spend doing roleplay. It's easier to have more complex systems in games than when doing a "pen-and-paper style" roleplay.
4. Depends on the focus, once again. In a hardcore dungeoncrawl setting, you should be wholly at the mercy of dice rolls. You can be the most badass swordfighter in the land, but if you roll a 1, you're failing as much as anyone else would. (As an aside, make modest characters, not demigods.) If it's more of a character-focused roleplay, it's probably best to not use a die at all, as there's no challenge to overcome, or any reason to have a level of randomness.

 

[Xatarias]

Wow I never expected so many people to take an interest! I really only role play with a handful of people here, so I was a little worried the thread would simply collect eye-rolls rather than actual responses. Thank you guys, I really appreciate it

Let's adress the topic of group RPs first. I didn't quote everyone, but not because I wanted to shrink the conversation. These are the replies that caused an immediate thought to pop up. Keep talking everyone!:

Spoiler

1 Coming from a forum rp website that had many group rps, it is a bit difficult to come to Fenoxo rp forums and see so many 1 on 1's. Groups allow experienced and new rpers not to feel so left out of the great rp community here and provides a wealth of opportunity for people to jump in. With that said I prefer group rps and would love to see more on Fenoxo. I'm not dissing 1 on 1's though because I know they can help two rpers grow closer to one another and assure that there is content aplenty for the both of them. But all in all I prefer groups rps and would like to see more in the rp section.

Back when the site blew up and there was a several month-long RP drought, I was constantly wracking my brain how to attract and keep new players. Things seem to have worked themselves out, but it certainly is nice to have an outside perspective for the entry-level Fen RPer (not that you're new to RPing). I like to think we're pretty inclusive here and a game is available for anyone determined enough to keep asking. That said, I can understand groups being more inclusive, especially if the GM is experienced at keeping the game going in spite of new additions/subtractions to the roster.

Spoiler

I prefer 1-on-1s. It's just easier for the GM to develop a storyline if there's only one character. But then again, I'm usually the player and not the DM, but from my experience... I'd say one on one is definitely easier. I can handle the NPCs easily because they usually end up sticking to the PC for the rest of the RP or at least, most of it. In case of multiplayer RPs, I have to develop multiple characters for more than one person, and theeen I kinda start missing details and stuff.

This has been my perspective for the duration of my time RPing on the forums. If I've only got one playing, it's easier for me to provide a rich and developing story for them. I sort of view the story telling that emerges from PC interaction to something wild and out of my control... That said, I've never actually worked up the courage to try and herd a group of players, so take my opinion with a huge heap of salt.

Spoiler

The right number of players in a role-play really depends on what kind of story the GM wants to tell. I prefer games with two to three people in them because it lets you focus more closely on a, relatively, small set of desires, preferences, and of course kinks, while still giving you as the GM the security of not having to drop the story if one person has to drop out for whatever reason. That said, if you can find one other person to consistently role play with, it really lets a feeling of familiarity develop with the other person, that you don't necessarily get from a group.

I'm glad you mentioned kinks, because I totally forgot them While certainly not a problem for more conventional RPs, this is Fen's Forums and people tend to like a little (or a lot) of smut on the side. Sexuality is something I will never demand flexibility for, and since we're all special snowflakes, in might be difficult to make everyone happy in a group if the kinks don't line up... Then again, things could go really really well with a particularly enthusiastic group of people.

My main concern with group RPs is when conflict arises. Not actual IRL conflict (although I have seen that happen), but say two characters are having a debate or want to slug it out? You can imagine that people want their character to have an impact on the plot and no one appreciates when their ideas are stunted by a die roll or someone having a higher Diplomacy check. Is this something rules/systems can address? Or do we rely on the come-to-jesus, "let's get on the same page, everyone" or "remember, no PvPing guys".

 

[Woider]

My main concern with group RPs is when conflict arises. Not actual IRL conflict (although I have seen that happen), but say two characters are having a debate or want to slug it out? You can imagine that people want their character to have an impact on the plot and no one appreciates when their ideas are stunted by a die roll or someone having a higher Diplomacy check. Is this something rules/systems can address? Or do we rely on the come-to-jesus, "let's get on the same page, everyone" or "remember, no PvPing guys".

But, and I'm gonna be really blunt here, that's how pen-and-paper works. You can either, A) Discuss and try to convince the other/come to a compromise, B) Roll dice to determine who wins over the other, or C) Fight until someone gives up or dies.

If you want to avoid that kinda stuff, then I'm afraid you gotta limit what characters people can play. Chaotic Evil and Lawful Good just doesn't go well together.

 

[Ithelyn]

Little bit late here, but I figured why not, discussion and sharing of information is usually helpful.

1. While I don't have too much experience with 1 on 1 RPs, from my experience both in play by post, like here, and in face to face gaming, I have found that I prefer small groups, say 3-5 people, including the DM/GM. This does however vary with the attitude of the people involved and how much work they're willing to do. For example, in a non-erotic game I'm in right now, there are people that seem like they are there just to avoid something else, and that detracts from the immersion and enjoyment of everyone involved, no matter how many people there are. On the flip side, I've been involved in groups that had 7 or 8 characters, and because everyone wanted to be there, and the chemistry between the characters worked out so well, that they were some of the best sessions I've been a part of. So while I do feel like the size of a group matters, and in-fact is important for the person in charge to know what they can handle, to me the engagement of those involved is much more important.

2. & 3. The key is finding a balance, because while a more complex system can, and that is the key work, give more options, but this can quickly get out of hand, becoming a confusing mess. On the other hand, too simple of a system leaves the players with very little to no guide, forcing them to stumble through, taking away from the experience as well. Personally, I prefer systems with a smaller number of stats (The 6 stats that tends to pop up due to D&D being the most I usually want to deal with), and some abilities, D&D, Dungeon World, and Numenera coming to mind, or no stats at all, instead based more on aspects of your character, with systems like Fate. In my experience, these types of systems seem to give enough of a framework for people to pick up the rules fairly easily, while giving the more experienced users the room to flex and explore new directions.

4. Personally, I prefer there to be a decent amount of randomness, as there is always a chance of failure in stressful situations, but if the character is taking their time and knows what they're doing, there shouldn't be many ways to screw up. one way I've found, as I'm sure many others have, is to just forgo the rolls when they feel unnecessary.

On the topic of conflict between characters and or players, while limiting the options of the players to more cohesive options, such as certain alignments, can help mitigate the conflict as Woider said, the reality is that it will always be there to some extent, and it will need to be dealt with.

 

[Weiss Ritter]

In my opinion, conflict between player characters doesn't have to be that much of an issue. It can be if you're using a gaming system that assumes a full team of characters is working together at all times, someone is being a poor sport OOC, or if it does irreversibly split the part in a way the GM isn't equipped to handle. Outside of that, I don't see it as all that different from conflict between a player character and an important NPC who may or may not be part of the "party".

One exception to that may be the "diplomacy" angle. It's one thing if the characters are trying to use social judo on each other in a courtroom or at a party where all eyes are upon them, that's not so different from any other challenge or form of physical conflict, but if they're actually trying to persuade the other in a way that could radically alter the characters that may be the time to dump the system and let the roleplay handle things. In my opinion, it is too much to expect a priest to renounce their faith, an atheist to embrace the gods, and a vegeance-driven wreck of a human being that maybe Baron von Badass-the murderer of his family and troll doll collection-just needs more hugs to straighten him out all because someone passed a charisma roll.