Skill at Role-Playing

[Starfox]

I recently had a discussion in another forum where my discussion partner tried to support his ideas by emphasizing the skill of his play group, and how, with such skilled players the Pathfinder rules fell apart (this was about caster balance). I didn't come up with this counter-argument then, but as I mulled over it I decided to analyze what really constitutes skill at role-playing.

Role-playing is a form of entertainment. It is a social activity where a group of people spend their leisure time in a fun way, that potentially also has a chance to also be educational and develop social skills. But fundamentally, it is entertainment. Anything else is extra. So, what skill contributes to this activity? Rule mastery? Yes, insofar as a more smoothly running game is likely more fun. But rule mastery is only a vehicle to the true goal; to have fun. So, skill at role-playing is the ability to make you and your companions at the gaming table game have a good time.

A kind of rules-mastery that creates a functional game is a plus. A kind of rules-mastery that creates obstacles to a fun game is a hindrance, not an asset.

A player/GM who full of fun and jokes around and makes everybody feel included and have a good time is an asset. A primadonna who is just as entertaining, but who makes other players shut up, is a hindrance.

World design that... I think you get the point by now.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Knowing the rules is good, definitely. But I think the prime skill in role-playing is the ability to communicate effectively.

Whether it’s being able to articulate the types of play you enjoy, describe things in an exciting manner, get your character’s personality across in a room full of people trying to do the same, it’s all vitally important to communicate. I’d also say that the ability to just plain get along with other people is important. These things all help the game be fun, which is what it should be.

 

[Tuzenbach]

I recently had a discussion in another forum where my discussion partner tried to support his ideas by emphasizing the skill of his play group, and how, with such skilled players the Pathfinder rules fell apart (this was about caster balance). I didn't come up with this counter-argument then, but as I mulled over it I decided to analyze what really constitutes skill at role-playing.

Role-playing is a form of entertainment. It is a social activity where a group of people spend their leisure time in a fun way, that potentially also has a chance to also be educational and develop social skills. But fundamentally, it is entertainment. Anything else is extra. So, what skill contributes to this activity? Rule mastery? Yes, insofar as a more smoothly running game is likely more fun. But rule mastery is only a vehicle to the true goal; to have fun. So, skill at role-playing is the ability to make you and your companions at the gaming table game have a good time.

A kind of rules-mastery that creates a functional game is a plus. A kind of rules-mastery that creates obstacles to a fun game is a hindrance, not an asset.

A player/GM who full of fun and jokes around and makes everybody feel included and have a good time is an asset. A primadonna who is just as entertaining, but who makes other players shut up, is a hindrance.

World design that... I think you get the point by now.

This is one of the best posts I've read on these boards in YEARS!!!!


GOOD JOB!!!!!!

 

[Bleys Icefalcon]

I see, and agree with your points. This said, there is a level of siliness and fun that is acceptable, and a level of siliness and fun that equates to the DM having lost any semblence whatsoever of control of his own game and nothing, nada, zilch, zip gets accomplished towards the actual story or game in question.

This said, the rules are all well and good, and while we do as a group adhere to them, we find we much prefer everyone looking for interesting ways to utilize abilities, skills and spells - out of the box thinking.

 

[Deset Gled]

I would split "skilled players" into three separate categories.

"Good role players" are people who excel at putting themselves in the mindset of the character they play. They choose actions that the character would choose. They separate meta-knowledge from in-game knowledge. They can easily fill many different roles, including ones that they aren't particularly fond of.

"Good gamers" know the rules. This includes a base level of system mastery, but is more than just power-gaming and rules-lawyering. They know how to be consistent, and how to apply different rules when appropriate. They know how to make the rules into a narrative and a hobby, not a chore.

"Good players" are just generally good people. They show up on time. They stay on focus. They're respectful of others and generally nice. They're funny when appropriate and serious when necessary.

You don't need to be a master of all three to be a skilled player. But having a little of all three goes a long way.

 

[GMMichael]

Wasn't the original discussion about how Pathfinder is not a good game for "skilled" players?

I don't think that this has anything to do with roleplaying, because the only rule in roleplaying is: do what your character would do. You can be a good roleplayer in Monopoly and the rules wouldn't break down. For fun: play a game of chess, acting like the Napoleon caricature the whole time.

If rules are "falling apart," it's because the players are not using the Rules As Intended (since I hope no designer goes out to create crumbly rules). Is it a skilled player who follows RAW but doesn't follow RAI?

 

[Starfox]

Wasn't the original discussion about how Pathfinder is not a good game for "skilled" players?

The spirit of the original question was (rephrased):

My gaming group is so skilled we are breaking Pathfinder (because of caster imbalance. Would you write a new fighter for us, comparable to a high-level spellcaster in power?

 

[religon]

From the revised question, I read "skilled" as some sort of power gamer, gamers who understand the nuance of the rules and either fully utilize or abuse the rules. I can see how some character classes might need to be redesigned to meet such player's expectations.

One example might be the thief class in early versions of D&D. With novice players, it was not very difficult to find players willing to play the character class. They sought out the opportunity to play a scoundrel, but were soon burned by the character class's limitations. As the players became more experienced, finding players willing to play thieves became more challenging. I'm sure there was some sort of redesigned uber-thief that would have sparked renewed interest in the class.

Overall, I think the more experienced players become, the more they expose imbalance in the rules. I have no idea if I would equate "skilled' in the revised question with a "good" player.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'd add something else. "Deep mechanical design is design where as players get more skilled with the rules the game gets more interesting and rules mastery adds to the game. Inept mechanical design is game where as players get more skilled with the rules the game gets significantly worse."

The problem does not rest with the players. It rests with the game designers.

 

[Starfox]

The problem does not rest with the players. It rests with the game designers.

While I agree with this basic sentiment, different games are designed with different levels of craft and insight, I don't think abusing existing rules to unbalance the game is a positive when measuring player skill. When faced with a game that does not fill his needs, a skilled player either adjusts to the game as it is or, if the entire group finds this a problem, goes looking for another game (which can be a modified version of the current game).

It all depends on what you're looking for. If this is a problem for you, I'd say you value the in-game challenges highly. A perfectly valid choice.

This is pretty similar to the point of the original discussion which triggered this thread, except that asking me (who do not perceive caster imbalance as a problem) to fix it was sort of pointless.