Roleplaying Your Gators

[CEOWolf 46]

So I'[m hoping to roleplay as Lola and my friend might humor me and roleplay too. So what do you guys think do you treat the game as a pen n paper rpg and act out your investigator?

[KrisWall 966]

23 minutes ago, CEOWolf said:

So I'[m hoping to roleplay as Lola and my friend might humor me and roleplay too. So what do you guys think do you treat the game as a pen n paper rpg and act out your investigator?

Nope.  It's a card game.  I let the cards in my hand dictate my actions, not what I think Jenny Barnes would do.  I'm not even sure how roleplaying your investigator would work when you're frequently limited to a very small handful (literally) of options.

[Somatose Boy 28]

It is definitely restrictive to roleplay this game, but not impossible.  You would have to limit yourself to what you have in hand or what you may know about your deck. Discussions with your fellow players could easily be in character and avoid talking about mechanics.

 

sounds very interesting and may try that sometime myself. Let me know how your attempt goes!

[Jobu 720]

36 minutes ago, KrisWall said:

Nope.  It's a card game.  I let the cards in my hand dictate my actions, not what I think Jenny Barnes would do.  I'm not even sure how roleplaying your investigator would work when you're frequently limited to a very small handful (literally) of options.

There is no reason you can't do both.  eg.  I can do both, other people can as well.

Roleplaying isn't doing suboptimal moves.  Its doing optimal moves while in character.

Example, "stay here if you like, I think I hear something in the next room."  I pull out my guns (tosses 6 resources out of my pool), move.  "Egads, a shoggoth, help!!!"  I fire my guns.  Where did we leave the chaos bag?

Most roleplaying games oscillate between in character talk and mechanical talk.

[KrisWall 966]

34 minutes ago, Jobu said:

There is no reason you can't do both.  eg.  I can do both, other people can as well.

Roleplaying isn't doing suboptimal moves.  Its doing optimal moves while in character.

Example, "stay here if you like, I think I hear something in the next room."  I pull out my guns (tosses 6 resources out of my pool), move.  "Egads, a shoggoth, help!!!"  I fire my guns.  Where did we leave the chaos bag?

Most roleplaying games oscillate between in character talk and mechanical talk.

I guess it just seems particularly challenging in a game that tends to require a lot of mechanical table talk.  I don't mind roleplaying in the context of a roleplaying game. 

[CSerpent 520]

I don't so much during play but when it comes to scenario decisions, absolutely.  As the Miskatonic librarian, Daisy is concerned with the students and preserving the Necronomicon.  Zoey says to **** with both of them, but I'm killing that beast.

Edited November 6, 2017 by CSerpent

[Network57 561]

14 minutes ago, CSerpent said:

I don't so much during play but when it comes to scenario decisions, absolutely.  As the Miskatonic librarian, Daisy is concerned with the students and preserving the Necronomicon.  Zoey says to **** with both of them, but I'm killing that beast.

This is my primary RP approach, as well. Within the game, if I'm presented with options - where to travel, gamble or drink - I'll almost always choose whatever's most advantageous within the current game state. But deciding whether to burn books, burn people, etc., I'll roleplay those (usually!)

[CEOWolf 46]

I'm always eager just embarrassed to try

[Buhallin 4,563]

2 hours ago, Jobu said:

Roleplaying isn't doing suboptimal moves.  Its doing optimal moves while in character.

If you're always playing optimally, you're not roleplaying.  People make sub-optimal decisions.  Recognizing when a character would do so, and playing those out, is the difference between rollplaying and roleplaying.

I'll occasionally throw in some character beats - our first run through Dunwich had us save the professor, and I treated that as scarring poor Daisy from then on.  I made a few sub-optimal decisions because that was her personality.

Generally, though, I find it difficult to actually roleplay a game with such an inconsistent feel for reality (at the micro level).  "Oh no, we're stuck in an alternate dimension!  It's a good thing a Beat Cop happened to wander by and offer his help!"  It's a great game, but roleplaying requires that sort of a consistent reality, otherwise it's simply farce.  Better to keep it at a high level and appreciate the broad themes rather than turning into a Monty Python skit.

[CEOWolf 46]

Things that are incomprehensible like allies in a nightmarescape are one thing but easy to roleplay around

[CSerpent 520]

Eh, the cop came up the hill to investigate all the noise and got sucked into the portal.  

[Network57 561]

8 minutes ago, CSerpent said:

Eh, the cop came up the hill to investigate all the noise and got sucked into the portal.  

As good as explanation as any!

[Jobu 720]

2 hours ago, Buhallin said:

Generally, though, I find it difficult to actually roleplay a game with such an inconsistent feel for reality (at the micro level).  "Oh no, we're stuck in an alternate dimension!  It's a good thing a Beat Cop happened to wander by and offer his help!"  It's a great game, but roleplaying requires that sort of a consistent reality, otherwise it's simply farce.  Better to keep it at a high level and appreciate the broad themes rather than turning into a Monty Python skit.

I mean, you could go that way

or you could say that the cop also got lost in time and space and joined you when you spent the resources and time to find him after finding a piece of his shirt stuck to a otherwordly tree

or you could say that the cop was there all along, but didn't start helping until you spent the resources and time to snap him out of his temporary hysteria caused by being lost in time and space.

There are a ton of ways to interpret playing cards.

2 hours ago, Buhallin said:

If you're always playing optimally, you're not roleplaying.  People make sub-optimal decisions.  Recognizing when a character would do so, and playing those out, is the difference between rollplaying and roleplaying.

I don't want to get into a major argument over what roleplaying is (because those are rabbit holes), but that's not necessarily true.  To clarify, it can be true, but isn't always true.

At the end of the day, if you are acting in character or describing actions in a narrative way, its roleplaying. 

Oh and to share: I have started so many scenarios with "Milan, hand me my ax." I have lost count.  (thats a very simple, fun roleplay in the game)

[Buhallin 4,563]

4 hours ago, Jobu said:

At the end of the day, if you are acting in character or describing actions in a narrative way, its roleplaying. 

My point was that if you're always playing optimally, you're not acting in character.  Or at the very least, you're doing so in such a trivial, shallow way that it doesn't really merit the term.  Describing things in a narrative way is part of roleplaying, but it's not sufficient.  All the description in the world of your fencing moves doesn't put you in the role.

4 hours ago, Jobu said:

I mean, you could go that way

or you could say that the cop also got lost in time and space and joined you when you spent the resources and time to find him after finding a piece of his shirt stuck to a otherwordly tree

or you could say that the cop was there all along, but didn't start helping until you spent the resources and time to snap him out of his temporary hysteria caused by being lost in time and space.

Sure.

Isn't it convenient that you've got like a dozen different people following along, all in a hysterical daze, just waiting for you to decide which is lucky enough to get woken up?  And Jenny didn't have her trusty .45's when that Acolyte showed up, but then remembered later that she just lost them in the bottom of her purse.  And someone airdropped in that Lightning Gun to the top of the trapped train.  And sure, of course Wendy always knew how to Pickpocket, she just wasn't because she was trying to reform, but then fell off the wagon.

Of course it's possible to create explanations (note that I don't say explain), but most such explanations are so ludicrous they sound more like an MST3K sketch.

Worth noting that I also didn't say it was impossible - just that it's difficult, and the quality of the resultant roleplaying is so poor I don't generally consider it worth it.

[Aaron Foss 500]

We definitely role play our investigators a little bit as we go because it adds to the fun for us. and with the story-heavy campaign structure, the game pretty much feels like a light Arkham Files RPG already, so it was a natural fit to go along with the little stories and explanations of things that we would discuss during/after each scenario. Heck, it even has an XP system and 'character' progression through upgrading cards.

4 hours ago, Jobu said:

I don't want to get into a major argument over what roleplaying is (because those are rabbit holes), but that's not necessarily true.  To clarify, it can be true, but isn't always true.

100% correct here.

Edited November 7, 2017 by Aaron Foss

[Aaron Foss 500]

22 minutes ago, Buhallin said:

My point was that if you're always playing optimally, you're not acting in character.  Or at the very least, you're doing so in such a trivial, shallow way that it doesn't really merit the term.  Describing things in a narrative way is part of roleplaying, but it's not sufficient.  All the description in the world of your fencing moves doesn't put you in the role.

...

Of course it's possible to create explanations (note that I don't say explain), but most such explanations are so ludicrous they sound more like an MST3K sketch.

Worth noting that I also didn't say it was impossible - just that it's difficult, and the quality of the resultant roleplaying is so poor I don't generally consider it worth it.

"I disagree with how you have fun and / or how you classify roleplaying, so you are objectively wrong."

Yeah, that dog won't hunt. Nobody needs to meet your arbitrary definitions of roleplaying 'enough', to call it roleplaying.

Edited November 7, 2017 by Aaron Foss

[Buhallin 4,563]

2 minutes ago, Aaron Foss said:

"I disagree with how you have fun and / or how you classify roleplaying, so you are objectively wrong."

Yeah, that dog won't hunt. Nobody needs to meet your arbitrary definitions of roleplaying 'enough', to call it roleplaying.

I never said anything about how people have fun.  If you enjoy playing tactical narrative games and pretending that you're roleplaying, have at it!  Seriously, go nuts, have fun.

My definitions of roleplaying aren't arbitrary - they're literally what the genre means.  There are probably thousands of articles on how to be a better roleplayer, or a better GM, and I don't think I've ever come across one that says "The best way to roleplay is for your character to always be perfect."  In fact, most will say the exact opposite.  Roleplaying is about shared storytelling.  Lots of people approach RPGs as narrative tactical games.  Which is fine - it's a fun game.  But it's not roleplaying.  Or, again, at the very least it's pretty weak roleplaying.

There certainly are many interesting discussions to be had around what makes for good roleplaying.  "You're not the boss of me!  I'll call it what I want!" isn't the beginning of one of those.

 

[Aaron Foss 500]

16 hours ago, Buhallin said:

There certainly are many interesting discussions to be had around what makes for good roleplaying.  "You're not the boss of me!  I'll call it what I want!" isn't the beginning of one of those.

What can I say? you've got me all figured out. My stance that role-playing is more broad than one rigid definition of play is nothing more than a childish denial of your absolute and provably One True Way of role-playing.

There's only one right way to role-play, and it applies equally across all people and hobbies. If one is not entirely subsumed into portraying their character as deeply, truthfully, and seriously as possible, everything they do is just pithy justifications and pretending - they're not really role-playing.

Thank you so much for showing me the light. How foolish I was to have thought that it was possible to take characterization as one aspect of play, combining it with decision making, collaborative storytelling, and strategy to create fun with my friends.

(That was the snarky sarcastic bit. Here's the rebuttal)

Yet you think that declaring other peoples' definition of what role-playing means to them is wrong is somehow a great opener?

Hot tip: your definitions absolutely are arbitrary. Anytime someone is bringing characterization and thought for the role they are portraying into their game THEY ARE LITERALLY ROLE-PLAYING. There's no degree by which they have to eschew smart technical decisions, talk in accents, or any other thing you decide to call "real" role playing to make it so. Role playing isn't a set of shackles by which to restrict play, it's simply way of looking at and exploring character-based play that can be fun and even introspective/educational for some.

You seem awfully fixated on the idea that making smart game play choices is somehow exclusionary to "role-playing". The two aren't opposite ends of a spectrum, they're on entirely separate charts. Daisy's a smart girl, but she also knows that cowering in the library for the next few hours won't stop the rampaging monster that's terrorizing the Miskatonic campus, so she bucks up and rushes out with Jenny to save the world (or, at least, the student union).

Arkham is a game set in a pulp adventure world inspired by Lovecraftian/cosmic horror and my regular play partner and I like to role-play it as such. We make the best decisions we can, but we also engage in character banter and narrate the events (both in and between scenarios), we find ways to weave in 'finding' our assets and describe our actions when we have a fun idea for how to do so. There is no way that you can tell me that we aren't role-playing and expect anything other than ridicule and scorn for being foolishly narrow-minded... particularly when you also seem to feel the need to pipe up with unasked for policing of our play.

"Jenny, stop flirting with your not-boyfriend Leo and help me open this door" directed at my Arkham partner while discussing our moves for the turn is just as much role-playing as any dramatic scene that would play out over the course of a deep-in-character game of Vampire: The Masquerade during a session in which no dice are rolled and everyone spends every moment of the session talking only in-character.

Where you've gone askew is that it's not "good role-playing" that's at question. It's things that worked or didn't. What scenes/productions/sessions/campaigns/etc. felt good and why? What moments engaged us in interesting or compelling ways? When we experience moments in role-playing that are profound, exhilarating, or just plain fun, it's not because someone is "good at" role-playing, it's because the event was good. Someone being a good actor or scene partner can certainly help with some styles, but so can being a good storyteller (which, as Neil Gaiman will tell you, is really about being a fantastic liar), or a great comedic partner, or any number of other factors.

You are right about one thing: there is a HUGE depth of incredibly interesting conversation to be had about what role-playing can be, and all of the various expressions and techniques one can use to explore not only a character but a world... or one's own psyche. I quite literally cannot count the hours that I have spent reading about or engaging in discussion with people about such things, and I feel I am enriched by every minute of that time.

Sadly, there's often some jerk gatekeeper trying to tell people they're doing it wrong. Those people are best left ignored, as they tend to bring nothing positive to constructive discussion about play.

"Jenny, could you pass me the painkillers, I have a headache... they should be in the second pocket of my book bag. No, darling, the second pocket. What do you mean there's a book in there? The Necronomicon!? But I left it at home! Oh beans..."

Edited November 8, 2017 by Aaron Foss

[Jobu 720]

7 hours ago, Buhallin said:

Isn't it convenient that you've got like a dozen different people following along, all in a hysterical daze, just waiting for you to decide which is lucky enough to get woken up?  And Jenny didn't have her trusty .45's when that Acolyte showed up, but then remembered later that she just lost them in the bottom of her purse.  And someone airdropped in that Lightning Gun to the top of the trapped train.  And sure, of course Wendy always knew how to Pickpocket, she just wasn't because she was trying to reform, but then fell off the wagon.

Oddly enough, a lot of not having something available earlier can be explained in character by saying that the characters are making sub-optimal choices (Zoey always had the lightning gun, but didn't pull it out until later when it would have been useful earlier because of it wasn't time accoridng to god).  All of this is about the players perspective, which is within the players control.  I also think you don't need to be perfect in your execution of roleplay for it to be roleplaying (since its largely improv, it usually isn't).  I can play tennis poorly and I am still playing tennis.

How one chooses to interpret events in game is in the players control, its a choice to view it as something absurd or something else.  I will say, sometimes its hard and sometimes its best to not explain how something happened to keep the game moving along.

I also find it weird when people can mentally get their heads around a shoggoth showing up (which doesn't actually exist) or me being a librarian in the 20s but can't provide the same suspension of disbelieve for when someone happens to find a set of lock picks in an odd place or decides to start using the lockpicks at a later time when it would have been mechanically useful earlier (heck maybe those earlier clues weren't behind locks).

If you want some relevant, textual backup for what is intended by roleplaying in this game:

L2P page 12:

"Arkham Horror: The Card Game seeks to establish a roleplaying experience in which each player takes on the role of a specific character: his or her investigator. The nature of the game encourages players to work together and communicate, but players are also encouraged to stay “in character” as much as possible while doing so."

The intent is play the game in character as much as possible, knowing you won't be able to do it perfect all the time.  Also, its quite clear that roleplaying is part of the game. 

The game is a LCG blended with an RPG or at least is an LCG with RPG elements.

Edited November 7, 2017 by Jobu

[Jobu 720]

17 hours ago, CEOWolf said:

So I'[m hoping to roleplay as Lola and my friend might humor me and roleplay too. So what do you guys think do you treat the game as a pen n paper rpg and act out your investigator?

I can't say I am in character 100% of the time, and I tend to be in character more often earlier in a scenario than later, but I try to stay in character as much as I can/when it adds entertainment value for the table.  We also talk OOO quite a bit, but keep trying to bring it back to IC.

Some Memorable Lines (I don't think anything below is a spoiler, outside of some specific enemies existing).

Pete: "Duke get that cultist", Daisy: "I must say I didn't think that mutt was so courageous."  (Pete declares he is attacking with Duke and Daisy is throwing in Unexpected Courage)

Rex:  "Milan, hand me that axe." (plays both Doc Chris and Fire Ax cards)

Mark: "Let me handle this" (plays "Let Me Handle This")

Rex: "Oh no, the Jenny Barnes special"  Player holds up hand and pantomimes lighting a dynamite fuse, holding it for a bit watching the fuse go down, then tosses, it followed by a big boom.  "Jenny you are a madwoman, you almost killed us all" Jenny: "Desperate times and all, my dear."  In game: Jenny plays dynamite on a space that all the players are in, including herself, damaging all the players but killing the ghoul priest.

Zoe: "I cleanse the house with fire."  This one should be obvious.

Daisy: in a monotone, nasally voice "According to this encyclopedia, train cars are typically attached in a chain with an engine in front, but sometimes there are also engines in the back.  Train car can be moved between via doors that are typically located at the the front and back of each car.  Focus your search there."  I use encyclopedia to give a +2 to intellect to another player.  My Daisy can get very pedantic.

Daisy: "Milan help me look around." "oh look an encyclopedia".  Plays Doc Chris, investigates and once successful, plays encyclopedia.

Daisy to Mark: "I think Pete is in trouble, go help him, I will be fine on my own."  Go move to help Pete, I have a card in my hand that can deal with the enemy engaged with me.

Pete: "In the dressing room, I put on a priest costume, then I go and exorcise the ghost."  Pete plays Fine clothing in a dressing room, moves then Parleys with the  Poltergeist.

Jim: "I get that I owe you guys money and I am good for it, but do we have to do this now?  I am covered in cultist blood.  Okay, okay here is your money, I have a monster to deal with."  Jim kills a cultist, parleys with Mob Enforcer and then takes a Machete to a Grappling Monstrosity.

Jim: "I use to play the Clover Club, lets go there."  Lets go to the Clover Club.

Skids: "**** yeah, lets gamble."  Lets go to the Clover Club.

Out of character, so if I understand it right, Mark, has basically entered the club, pulled out a gun, went to the bar, had his old war wound act up, steeled himself for that, had a drink (to help him deal with the war wound) and then pounded some rats that ran across the bar.  (narration/summation of all Marks actions at that stage of the game moved a bit, played a .45 auto, drew internal injury, got rid of it, had a drink at the bar and then killed some rats without a weapon).  This one we will be remembering for a long time.

[Ersatz Nihilist 172]

Nah, this isn't a role playing game and trying to use it as such is a pretty shallow experience. My choices, reactions and strategies tend to be dictated by what's in my hand and the meta-state of the board rather than anything in-character. You'll see characters move to specific locations to achieve specific things that they couldn't possibly have known about before arriving; as other people have mentioned, items and cards allow for very little internal consistency. The example of the cop in the netherworld is a good one - sure, you can come up with any sort of justification you like but that doesn't make it satisfying.

Nor does the cop change in the next game that he pops out in.

The other problem is one of determinism. Every time I sit down to play Arkham, I know that the game can end in 2-3 different ways, which depend on the success of the players, and there's nothing I can do at all to short circuit or modify these outcomes, I just head down one route and in the end things only get changed a little bit in terms of the wider railroad that constitutes a "season".

If you want to talk in character, and comment on stuff like that that's cool - it adds flavour to the game, but without a GM or a group of other players (in the example of GM-less RPGs), who are able to adapt the game world as part of the narrative you're playing an active, influencing part on I wouldn't really call it roleplaying. There's not enough substance here for that.

 

Great game, though.

[Duciris 1,347]

I agree with some of you.  I disagree with some of you.  I neither agree strongly nor disagree strongly with some of you.  And there is some overlap in there.

We always take on perspectives of our characters.  We try and play the same pool of "mains" from Arkham game to Arkham game.  Yes, we have min/max conversations about a given round influenced by the board state and desired outcomes, but I like the idea of more verbally role-playing the characters.

I'd like to help you, let's see if there's something in this book I'm holding...  No, the Encyclopedia says you're supposed to hit it harder than that.  Pete!  Stop letting your dog slobber all over the-  Oh, hey that's it isn't it?  Who's a good dog, Duke?  Ugh.  Why do you smell better than your owner?

When playing, we never let Ashcan put Fancy Clothes in his deck.  Limited copies notwithstanding, that's proven a sub-optimal restriction based on character background.  Daisy grabbed the (story card) Necronomicon because she couldn't help herself, despite staunch objections.

Similarly, in our intro campaign, Jenny (which on it's surface made no thematic sense) decided to Burglar(ize) Akachi's home.  In front of her.  Repeatedly.  So we incorporated it into our narrative for the remained of the campaign.  Namely, when Akachi chose to burn her own house down, gaining a mental trauma, Jenny handed her a candlestick from her own smoldering parlor.

[Buhallin 4,563]

5 hours ago, Jobu said:

Oddly enough, a lot of not having something available earlier can be explained in character by saying that the characters are making sub-optimal choices (Zoey always had the lightning gun, but didn't pull it out until later when it would have been useful earlier because of it wasn't time accoridng to god).  All of this is about the players perspective, which is within the players control.  I also think you don't need to be perfect in your execution of roleplay for it to be roleplaying (since its largely improv, it usually isn't).  I can play tennis poorly and I am still playing tennis.

There's a certain point where you're playing tennis so badly it's not really tennis any more.  But it's less about how well you do it than WHAT you're doing.  Roleplaying is playing a character through a world.  Contrary to Aaron's opinion, it's not just having fun that matters.  You can't stand in a tennis court and bean each other with the balls while someone uses a raquet to strain cheese and call it tennis, no matter how much fun everyone is having or how tasty the cheese is when it's done.

5 hours ago, Jobu said:

I also find it weird when people can mentally get their heads around a shoggoth showing up (which doesn't actually exist) or me being a librarian in the 20s but can't provide the same suspension of disbelieve for when someone happens to find a set of lock picks in an odd place or decides to start using the lockpicks at a later time when it would have been mechanically useful earlier (heck maybe those earlier clues weren't behind locks).

It's like watching bad SF - sure, you can make up reasons to paper over the holes in the plot, but the more you have to do that the worse the story is.  You inherently want a consistent world.  Lack of consistency is bad for storytelling, as the excuses pile up and get more and more far-fetched (or repetitive).  But it's even worse for trying to roleplay.  Your character needs to have a consistent world around them in order to express their agency within that world.  Being completely bound by random events is just as bad as always making the perfect mechanical choice.

[BD Flory 695]

1 hour ago, Buhallin said:

There's a certain point where you're playing tennis so badly it's not really tennis any more.  But it's less about how well you do it than WHAT you're doing.  Roleplaying is playing a character through a world.  Contrary to Aaron's opinion, it's not just having fun that matters.  You can't stand in a tennis court and bean each other with the balls while someone uses a raquet to strain cheese and call it tennis, no matter how much fun everyone is having or how tasty the cheese is when it's done.

You can play doubles tennis, and its still tennis. You can play tennis on clay, grass, or hard court; with a wooden racket or graphite; professionally, competitively, or just for fun. All still tennis.

"Role-playing," is a much broader category than that. You're being ridiculous.

[Buhallin 4,563]

12 minutes ago, BD Flory said:

You can play doubles tennis, and its still tennis. You can play tennis on clay, grass, or hard court; with a wooden racket or graphite; professionally, competitively, or just for fun. All still tennis.

"Role-playing," is a much broader category than that. You're being ridiculous.

Sure - up to a certain point, tennis is still tennis.  You can roleplay with 3 players or 4.  You can do it with a GM or without.  You can do it with dice, and any number of character stats and charts from zero to Rolemaster.

But there are still things which fundamentally make tennis tennis, and make roleplaying roleplaying.  Just because it's a broad category does not mean that anything you want to slap "roleplaying" on becomes roleplaying.