Saturday 11 January 2014

"That's Role - not Roll" - what role playing is really about

The title of the post is borrowed from an article in Dragon Magazine #188 that just now lies beside me, in case anyone asks.
The ingenious word play does in fact address the main issue we currently have with the hobby.
The everlasting argument that modern games tend to sail towards boardgame model and how old games were all about role playing.
As it seems in the distant 1992 we had exactly the same problems and rest assured that they became visible much earlier than the publication date of the article.

The said article does not (unsurprisingly) bring anything new to the table. It can be summarised in the following points of advice:

  • develop background for your character (for players)
  • remember what game you're playing (for players)
  • don't use cliches while running the game (for DMs)
  • deviate from the scenario if it improves the game (for DMs)
  • suspend your disbelief and don't question DMs decisions (for players)
Not really revealing and it's not due to the fact that the game was still developing in those days. Believe me, it was not.
So, I was disappointed, but the title left me thinking.

What is in fact the essence of role playing?
How do we role play? How can we role play?

As the DMs role and responsibilities are somewhat broader than 'just' role playing I mean to approach it from a player's perspective. Obviously the term Role Playing Games encompasses various areas of activity and it's not my intention to write yet another imperfect definition of the game. There are people much more apt to tackle with this subject.
What I am coming from is that the grand part of the game is about playing a role. Or in other words taking up a role of someone else, a character, and acting as if you were this character.
The first thing that comes to mind is...

Theatre


Yes, you can say - Cinema. but theatre has a way longer (euphemism) tradition of acting and to me is much closer to the rpgs than cinema. The reason for this is probably a good idea for another post.
What theatrical actors do is act. They take up prescripted roles (let's forget about improv theatre for now) and do their best to convince the audience they are this prescripted character.
They act like that character, they speak like that character (including simulating the choice of words, the tone, the accent etc.) they simulate the emotions that the character would feel in a given context.
There are few major differences everyone will immediately notice. An actor works in a predetermined context which is known to him. The events do not surprise him, he knows the plot through and out. The other thing is that the actor works with his whole body, he walks and gesticulates.
Finally, acting is actor's job. His approach to acting is incomparably more serious than that of a fantasy games amateur (nota bene). But should it be that way?

Holding the steer


Unlike a traditional actor the rpg players don't play in a predetermined environment (theoretically). At least, they should not be aware of any predetermination. Surely, if you're playing a scenario prepared by a DM then some assumptions regarding the plot have been made. Commercial modules have even more rigid frames. But the important difference is that the players do not know how their adventure will end. In fact, they should be holding the steer and drive the events they participate in. If they're not this is either DMs or Player's oversight. This I will not address here, but I have read at least two fantastic and comprehensive articles on the subject:

How to dungeon master and How to play a character

This makes all adventures open-ended. And theoretically the players can do anything they want. This gives them certain opportunities that most of the players are not aware of. And certain responsibilities.
By consciously acting in their environment they not only express their character's nature, but they also shape it. They have total control over their character's personality and destiny. They build the character in a much wider sense that during generating the character's stats. They make moral decisions that influence the course of the game and define them. This is something only recently taken up by the video game industry, but something that was lurking in shadows of the tabletop rpg world from the beginning.


Speech


One mean of expression that rpg players share with actors is speech. Rpg's distinctive feature is that the primary tool used by the players is speech actually.
Players describe what their characters are doing. But they also speak for their characters in first person.
This is an important mean of building the character. Of playing the role. Identify with the character and speak as if you are him and he is you. I mentioned the choice if words, accent, tone, temperament that actors simulate. Those are exactly the tools necessary for proper playing of a role. If you have a player that always treats his/her character as a third person and uses solely indirect speech than there is not much role playing in there. Role playing is not about moving your pawn on an imaginary board. This is 'imaginary chess'.
Role playing is about becoming one with the character, about simulating his manner of being. Including the way he/she aloudly expresses his thoughts.

Body language


As I mentioned previously, theatre actors do have a somewhat broader range of role playing means and techniques.
Rpg players have their tongues - they talk. But wait till the tension at the table rises - they are ready to use their arms and hands.
Still, there is quite a distinctive line between rpg acting and theatrical acting - the space of rpg acting is limited to the player's personal space. In that sense, rpg acting is much more static. Everything you can do with your voice, face (faces, frowns etc.) and waist-up body parts (gestures) can be uses to expand your game. All other manoeuvres that include moving in horizontal space and actions that involve using the whole body need to be described in words.
This often leads to a situation where players forget about certain elements of the body language and thus simplify their game.
Language itself is a powerful mean of expressing one's manner of being, behaviour, personality. Body language is multiplying the effect by 2.
This is a inseparable element of any true role playing activity.

Interaction


One reason I began longing for rpgs after my temporary break was that in no other game I was able to interact and build relations on a comparable level.
This is not only about free choice, but about having no limits in interacting with the fictitious world and its inhabitants. While role playing we are able to approach any single problem from any angle we're capable of adopting. Our characters here share only the same limitations that we have as people.
Role playing on that level brings colours to the game and breaches the boundaries that all other games have. It becomes so much more than just a game as a set of rules that we understand and use better or worse than the others. It creates aesthetic value.  It becomes art in the sense we use it while referring to the 'art of living'. It gives us freedom do be whoever we want to be and try whatever we want to try.

Emotional immersion


This is something I tackled a bit already in one of my earlier posts.
Role playing is not only about superficial actions. It's about simulating internal sensations. Suggesting their existence by our actions. At a certain point this will lead inevitably to experiencing emotions.
A good actor acts emotions out. A great actor seems as if he was feeling them for real. This is something everyone immediately senses, whether emotions are acted or genuine. But as modern psychologists claim, emotions are not only about 'inside outside', but also about 'outside inside'. It means that if we're pretending to feel something, with time our brain will begin to adopt the imagined mindset.
By explaining this I only want to make a point, that true role playing leads to emotions.
And in order to be a part of it we need to embrace them. More than that, we need to actively get engaged in the game. Start treating it seriously for a change, the way serious actors do. It's not all 'fun and games' in your everyday sense. It's role playing, it's about temporarily becoming someone else. Not only on a paper or video screen. In your head! 
This particular part is probably the most interesting in the terms that it's not exclusive to tabletop rpgs. It's becoming more and more common for certain video games to use that mechanism - relating to the main character who symbolises the player. Movies and books have been using it since always, but without providing that level if interaction.


Suspension of disbelief


This one is about immersion in the game itself, not only in your character. Role playing assumes that you take your fictuitious environment for real. There is no spoon? Quite the opposite - the spoon is real. Deal with it.
Role playing is about existing in a given environment, not questioning it - unless its substantiated for the character by some strange events. 
Articles were written for DMs advising on how to run a game that does not force the players to suspend their disbelief. But equal effort needs to be made by the players themselves. 
Remember - whatever happens - happens. Treat the game seriously. That is not only the best way to start really enjoying it, but also to play your role right.

A silly example: if one day you enter your flat and discover that one of the walls is missing, do you say "Ekhm, God, this is not how it's supposed to be. There was a wall here, remember? I refuse to live on if this wall is not back in place."
I am not saying the players should tolerate DMs foolishness at all times, I am saying though that rules lawyering, meta-gaming and questioning your environment is not an element of playing a role.
Bear that in mind.


Conclusion


I am probably the last person to tell you how to play your games.
I am however interested in how much role playing is in rpgs. And in crpgs. And any other games that we play, be it video, board, card games for that matter.
So my point is that if you really want to role play - consider my points above.
And note in such case the particular set of rules you're using is irrelevant. Rolling your dice, having particular system of skills is secondary. You don't need the 5th edition of game X to do the thing you want to do.
It will not improve your role playing in any way.

Tuesday 7 January 2014

In the Zone

Really don't mind if you sit this one out
my words but a whisper, your deafness a shout
I may make you feel but I won't make you think
Your sperm's in the gutter, your love's in the sink

The idea for this post has been recently forming in my head, but it only got shape after reading a post by one of my fellow sages - one about anger.
What makes some sessions more memorable than others?
What does draw you in with such force that in that one enlighted moment you truly ARE the character you play?
I sure do hope that some of you have ever experienced this sensation, otherwise it might be like explaining the construction of the multiverse to someone who's never played a single rpg session.

All the same, this is probably the holy grail of all players (not necessarily DMs). To become the character you play, to see, hear, smell, taste and touch things the character does. To FEEL what the character feels.
How can you do that? How can you achieve that?
Many role playing guides argue and discuss over and over how a player should approach the game, what technical manoeuvres and actions should the player take to get more in-the-game. In the zone some say.
I have heard and seen discussions regarding the particular players abilities to get in the zone.
Some say you either have it or not. Others say you have to learn in and give your 100% every session and you might sometime get there.

Well, I believe it is all the more simple and complicated at the same time.
For one, this magic feeling is usually a combination of scenario, good pacing of the game, moods at the table, inspiration of the DM and the players. It is a hard thing to grasp, but the most important of all, you just can't force it.
It's like with making love, there is just no romance in forcing your tongue down someones throat. It has to evolve naturally and some would be terrified how uncertain the destination is. Still, it is important at the same time to hope for the best, not fear the worst. Positive attitude is fundamental.
Leaving our romantic metaphors, we need to remember that creating a memorable and magical session is beyond anyone's control. What we can do however is make some preparations that would facilitate the positive evolution of the evening.

There is a really goodstab at it in the Dominic Wasch "Gamemastering" book.


The particular element I want to refer to in this post however are emotions.
If there is any meaning in this world IMO it's bound to them. Lack of emotions, apathy, means a world devoid of all meaning and sense.
Emotions make us feel more, experience more and start caring - for a change.
So, if there is any good gaming session in this world it has to be full of emotions. It might seem so obvious, because everyone is talking about excitement that is connected to playing rpgs. True, but that natural excitement won't last forever and if you're an old grognard like me, who's seen things, been places, you will not be easily excited by a mere idea of playing. 'Cause I want to feel something out of ordinary when I play.
Throw some kobolds or skeletons at me in a dungeon, spice it up with a dragon. It's all meaningless if it's flat on the emotional side. 
Players usually come to the game in different state of inner excitation. They fuel it themselves, but does it suffice for a satisfactory game?

From a DMs point of view it's treading on thin ice. You never know what will happen in the course of play. And you surely want to engage the players, enchant them in the fantasy world.
The key aspect you need to consider here is "does the game inspire any particular emotion"?
Because if you and the scenario can inspire any in the players then you have a memorable evening guaranteed. Emotions are the motor of players' actions. The drive them, direct them to the final destination.
The magical ingredient in creating living plots is to play on players' feelings.

I do ask myself at times what was my most memorable session. One that comes to my mind is one game we played in WFRP. A GM + 2 players. A one-nighter, somewhere on the outskirts of a dark forest in the old empire. The two of us, travellers, have reached a suspiciously quiet hamlet. We just wanted to spend the night there, seeking shelter from the storm that was about to begin. What followed was the most exciting zombie survival game I have ever experienced. Running amok in the dark, shadows on the mill's walls, sloshing about in thick mud, soaked and terrified. The only weapon I had was a hatchet I found a shed.
I ended this session with a couple of Insanity Points and a mental illness. And I never ever stopped grasping that hatchet with all my might. But to this day I remember that night. I was there in this village, I feared for my life, I was trembling with terror and excitement. Kudos to probably the most inspiring GM I have ever met. No video game has ever given me this level of emotions.

So yeah, fear, hate, anger, love, shame, greed, envy, sympathy, compassion etc. It's all there for you to play with.
Some of them are easier, some more difficult to create during gaming sessions.
I will not tell you here how to do it, I will probably never know for sure myself, but I will keep on trying.
I just want you to keep that in mind next time you prepare yourself to get in the zone.

Sunday 5 January 2014

Storm season - new Witcher novel review



This is probably a risky enterprise. To review the newest novel of A. Sapkowski.
Hearing that name Polish readers will unmistakably think about the Witcher stories and saga. Foreign readers might recall the awarded video game series.
Be it as it may, the essence of the Witcher is in the books. And since the last Witcher book was released in 1999 (Lady of the Lake) and the author himself was quite firm in his assurances that he would never ever write anything about the Witcher, it came as quite a surprise that in the autumn of 2013 the new Witcher novel landed on the bookstore shelves out of the blue.

I must say it felt like an old friend coming back from a long exile. Or oblivion for that matter.
The Witcher stories and saga is one of my  favourite fantasy series. The games for one allowed to return for a moment to the good old days when Geralt, Dandelion and Ciri were my day-to-day companions.
But it was not exactly the same as holding a fresh, unread Witcher story in my hands.
Feeling the Witcher's world come to life again and share new untold secrets with me.

It should suffice to say that the new book had some quite high expectations to meet among the fans.
Did it do the trick?

First I want to note, that reading of the book coincided with the birth of my baby-daughter. I read it aloud to my wife between and while nursing, feeding, lulling the baby and changing diapers.
And in these rather harsh circumstances we managed to finish it in one week. Does it speak for itself?

Being well into the book I started to look around the reviews and noticed that there are generally two main attitudes. One is a joyous praise full of admiration for the oeuvre and its creator. Thickly interwoven with threads of sentiment and nostalgia. The other is of embarrassment and disappointment. Little wonder given the expectations I mentioned earlier.

To me Sapkowski is a master of short forms. Tales, stories are his natural element. To this day many fans claim (and with good reason) that nothing can beat his Witcher stories. Short, witty, brilliant, innovative and surprising. Dynamic, both dramatic and fun to read. If you don't like Witcher's stories that you have no taste for good fantasy literature, no argument about that.
There were already many a complaint regarding his 5-tome-long saga. I do agree to a certain extent, it seemed to loose its momentum. Despite that, it was fun to read, the story was interesting and epic.
The ending - moving. The last time I read it aloud with my wife we both cried.

The one thing important to point out is that in Sapkowski's case it's not only about his ideas. It's about the writing style, the composition of text, the language, the vocabulary he uses that enchants the reader and creates the Witcher's magic. And the sole fact that the whole saga was bursting at the seams with this individual style was enough to go through it all with fascination.

So now, coming back to the matters at hand - the new novel of Sapkowski - Sezon Burz.
It is neither a story (400 pages long) nor a saga (1 complete book). The action takes place somewhere between the stories preceding the events from the saga.
It is not as concise and focused as the stories - there are several subplots - but the variety of plots in my opinion does not make it a classic novel either. All in all to me it is more of a prolonged story. A combination of ideas connected chronologically and geographically. Does not sound that good, does it?
Well, to my surprise the book was very enjoyable to read.
The plot is interesting and dynamic, certain supposedly unrelated story elements form a big coherent picture at the end of the book.This is indeed a display of Sapkowski's composing abilities.
There are the characters we all love, and though in the beginning of the book the reader must take his time to believe they're the same people he knows from the previous stories, quite soon we suspend the disbelief completely.
But this would not be enough to make up a good novel.
The most important fact is that this book brings us back the unmistakable style of A. Sapkowski.
It might not be at its peak as some reviewers claim, but it is still there. Smart and witty, opulent and sophisticated, yet dynamic and harsh when necessary. It's all there, the dark and pessimistic humour, the trademark sarcasm, the irony of life.
I claim that the combination of the three elements: the story, the characters and the writing style make this book more than worthwhile.
The overall quality might only reach the writing level of the last two saga tomes (the lowest in all Witcher's bibliography), it might not blow hardcore fans' socks off, but for God's sake the Witcher is truly back, alive and kickin' (arses).

Wednesday 1 January 2014

Why do I play D&D?

Dear Travellers,

This post is (surprisingly) about the D&D product in general, or should I call it - the D&D brand.
My blogging fellow sage Alexis is often sharing his very insightful observations on the Tao of D&D blog. Recently, his musings regarding the direction of D&D product left me thinking. Thinking a lot indeed.

One argument was that what currently WotC  is doing (oh yes, the ever-beating boy) lands far from the original concept of D&D as an ever-adapting and arbitrary set of guidelines, not even rules. Thus, the pursuit of the "one and only right D&D" is pointless i.e. D&D Next is yet another way to pull the money from their Clients' pockets.
That is an interesting point indeed, but knowing that it was written mainly to stir a controversy I believe there's no point discussing it - again. Given that WotC is a commercial company after all - and all that.

The other point, more interesting from my POV was about the published rpg material in general, ending with a spectacular, yet only projected (thank God) burning of the old Dragon Magazines (BTW Mr. Tao, if you don't need them would you kindly send them over to me? I'd be more than glad to take them in).
I have myself a collection of AD&D products and I proudly display them in my living room. One reason for this is my collectors nature - I am a fetishist of storing things. For sentimental reasons mostly.
The other reason is simply that I use them, yes, even the old-old modules.
I am currently running a campaign using the AD&D2e rules and some classic 1e and 2e modules for Forgotten Realms (and beyond). I have a helluva time trying to figure out how to combine the modules in a linear storyline that makes sense and is engaging and entertaining at the same time. I treat it as building from blocks. And I do this also - for sentimental reasons. Because we all (my players) want to get that feel of 80'/90' when we played these modules for the first time. Because this is what holds the essence of the game we once knew.
Sure, I could create my own campaign from the scratch, as many people do or boast of doing. But I really don't need or want to now.

I really do understand the argument that the old modules do not make the game. They don't and should not create the canonic D&D universe, storyline, what have you. But we have lived through it, they created our idea of the game and there are times when you want to innovate and cross the marked borders, but there are also times when you want to play the vanila game in the book as you bought it.
When you just enjoy the product that was prepared for you by the manufacturer and as was prepared for you by the manufacturer. Rpgs give you the opportunity to work on it, but it does not always have to be hard work. It can be pure entertainment if you are looking for it.
This is a bit like arguing whether to play commercial modules at all. For some people it works for some - does not.

I like the idea that there is history in the books I display on the shelf. History brings meaning to things. History brings meaning to us. It is about tradition. And a healthy balance with "the new".
So my fetishist feeling for the books is not just about collecting gadgets. Yeah, I do like gadgets. I have 5 sets of dice, each one completely different. But I collect modules because they all tell a story once conceived by some devoted mind. I collect accessory books because if I don't use their content word for word, they inspire me to come up with my own ideas.
That's how the creative process flows after all. New things are built on old things. By contradiction, by evolution or revolution - yes, but they don't exist in the void. There would be no Runequest if not for the OD&D.

So, why do I play D&D? Because the original idea captivated me. Because it taught me how to play the game. Because it formed my taste for fantasy, sword&sorcery themes and because it gives me that sense of participating in a decades long tradition. And sure, the current state of the game as per WotC is not "the one and only D&D" and will never be. At least not for me. Because the "one and only D&D" is different for each of us, it is formed through the years of playing and built on our experiences, sessions played, chests looted, monsters defeated and kingdoms saved. My "one and only D&D" lies somewhere there in the early 90'. Where doth thy lie?