[MUD-Dev] SOC Roll play vs. Role play

[Zach Collins (Siege)]

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004, Matthew Rick wrote:

> Who in their right mind would assume that Boffo could possibly win
> except through incredible luck (an unbelievably good roll)?  I
> have seen this point argued a great deal (not necessarily on this
> list, but I am very interested in hearing what list members
> think), but have never read any compelling reason why a duel
> between these characters should be anything but a foregone
> conclusion.

> In fact, the only reason that I have _ever_ heard used to justify
> the notion that it should not, is that having the server determine
> results based on stats is "roll" playing (usually said in a
> derisive tone).  Well and fine, but what then is "role" playing?
> Does not the role of a novice inherently imply that he would not
> be as skilled as someone who is an expert in a field?

Let's pause here, and look at what's being assumed.  First: we have
a game which may or may not have combat stats.  Second: the reason
for declaring a duel is considered irrelevant.

Wait, irrelevant?  Hold up!  How is motivation irrelevant here?
Actually, we need to ask whose motivation matters: the players', or
the characters'?

Why is the character's motivation important?  Well, let's look at a
clear definition of role-playing.  I define role-playing to be
playing the role of a character within the bounds of a given
scenario or game.  Actors do this all the time, getting "in
character" to play their scripted roles.

So when a player is playing the role of a character, it's the
character's motivations that matter.  Why does Bubba's expert
character want to duel Boffo's novice?  Is it just for a refinement
of skill, or was there some offense involved?  Or do the players
just want to throw characters at each other like some sort of
fighting animal ring and/or earn points, in-character reasons be
damned?  One is role-playing, and the other is not.

> My specific questions (which are probably rhetorical, but even I
> can't be sure at the moment) are:

>  1. Since Boffo is ultimately deciding how good his character is
>  at dueling whether or not he gets to do so explicitly (ie whether
>  he decides this by fighting a lot of duels and developing in game
>  dueling skills, or through a mush like player created story) is
>  the distinction between these systems a false one, if so, why is
>  this distinction perceived by so many, and what ultimately draws
>  so much derision from "role" players towards "roll" players?

The distinction between systems with rules and systems with
free-form roleplay is whether there are limits to what the
characters can do, including ways to determine absolutely who's
better at what.

>  2. What, precisely, is the draw of a game with no rules (as I
>  perceive mush/moo style games to be, if this is not the case,
>  feel free to jump all over this and make me look like a fool, I
>  don't mind, I'm used to it)?

The creativity and use of imagination involved is a pretty good
reason for it.  Also, when the game isn't specifically designed to
maximize combat over all (go chop up monsters for points so you can
get better at meditation, for example), then players can focus on
the non-combat aspects of their characters.

I would note that many MUSHes have RPG systems coded in to provide
character stats and game-based conflict resolution methods.  These
systems are often taken from, or based on, pen and paper games such
as Storyteller (the White Wolf RPG system) or GURPS.  However, the
focus generally remains on social interaction rather than
advancement through combat.

>  3. While I must admit that there is probably a lot of drama and
>  intense roleplaying going on in the mush/moo environment, is it
>  really that logical to assume that similar ammounts of tension do
>  not exist in a mud as well (I can still vividly recall the
>  details of some of the higher tension encounters I have had with
>  several players in Aetolia especially Rofomagus (his underlings
>  and mine clashed on several occasions and if my character could
>  have been said to have an arch enemy it would certainly have been
>  him, although I found the player to be a charming individual),
>  even though I have not played that game in over two years now).

Of course it isn't logical to make that assumption.  But now there
is no distinction being made between _amount_ and _source_.  The
tension of a tough, long-running boss battle with limited support
may be very high; but this is not necessarily the same kind of
tension as an advertising war between merchants might engender.
Which one is more nerve-wracking, more likely to spawn powerful
feelings?  Well, both of them.  It's just that one is a combat event
and one is a social event.

I would suggest if you wish to pursue this question further, that
you diversify your experience.  Join a strictly social MU*; try a
role-playing MU*; sit in on a few RPG sessions at your local gaming
shop; watch actors rehearse for the high school play; find a LARP
(live-action role playing) group and observe them.  You don't have
to force yourself to do this, or stay for very long.  You just have
to be able to observe for long enough to actually get an idea of the
differences between players and characters.

--
Zach Collins (Siege)
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev