There's a reason D&D was known for rollplayers. The system is not built for roleplaying. This isn't some pseudoscience like Sapir-Whorf, either, it's what the rules encourage (or don't encourage).
This. Every game, intentionally or no, promotes a certain kind of playstyle and certain kind of engagement. Dnd is mostly interested in being a series of minor tactical skirmishes, with only a thin veneer of anything in between. The non-combat rules are paper thin, and mostly rely on the GM carrying all of that weight with no support from the system itself.
Being mostly interested in combat does not make it a bad game (there are other things that do, but thats neither here nor there) but it does mean that any player who is interested in serious roleplay is going to be the odd one out and probably better off playing another system entirely. Meanwhile, players who enjoy the type and level of engagement that DnD encourages are going to feel out of their depth in any system that asks more from them than a character concept thats only 10 words long and is mostly just a meme.
Contrast this to something on the far opposite side of the spectrum like AdEva: a game where you get a single combat encounter every 3-4 sessions, and most scenes are the PCs bouncing off of each other during group activities/briefings or taking the initiative and setting up their own scenes to pursue personal character goals and investigations that they might not even share the results of with the other players. In a game like AdEva, "the characters have breakfest" might be all the setup for a scene you need and it will probably end with a screaming match in and out of character.
There is no difference between rollplaying and roleplaying. Go back to the theatre club.
This. Every game, intentionally or no, promotes a certain kind of playstyle and certain kind of engagement. Dnd is mostly interested in being a series of minor tactical skirmishes, with only a thin veneer of anything in between. The non-combat rules are paper thin, and mostly rely on the GM carrying all of that weight with no support from the system itself.
Being mostly interested in combat does not make it a bad game (there are other things that do, but thats neither here nor there) but it does mean that any player who is interested in serious roleplay is going to be the odd one out and probably better off playing another system entirely. Meanwhile, players who enjoy the type and level of engagement that DnD encourages are going to feel out of their depth in any system that asks more from them than a character concept thats only 10 words long and is mostly just a meme.
Contrast this to something on the far opposite side of the spectrum like AdEva: a game where you get a single combat encounter every 3-4 sessions, and most scenes are the PCs bouncing off of each other during group activities/briefings or taking the initiative and setting up their own scenes to pursue personal character goals and investigations that they might not even share the results of with the other players. In a game like AdEva, "the characters have breakfest" might be all the setup for a scene you need and it will probably end with a screaming match in and out of character.
>The non-combat rules are paper thin, and mostly rely on the GM carrying all of that weight with no support from the system itself.
This only applies to second edition and onwards.
Nta but >Having seen him fight i can assess that i can deflect his best attack at least once, although it would be costly leaving me open for the next one
There, i added some roleplay flavour on top of that
1 month ago
Anonymous
Flavor/fluff is not roleplaying. Roleplaying is making decisions that the character would make given their understanding of a situation, and can be just as dry as the most banal optimized combat drone already is, in its delivery. And you can be a metagaming piece of shit who really heaps on fluff and flavor, too. Arguably those fricks are the worst.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Roleplaying is making decisions that the character would make given their understanding of a situation
Which i did: my character made an assessment about what he has seen beforehand.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Except that's not true, your character and indeed you as the player have no way of knowing enemy damage or HP without some kind of special ability or tool which can tell you that information. You're simply metagaming.
1 month ago
Anonymous
I can make in-world comparisons you know
1 month ago
Anonymous
And these comparisons should fall far short of the reality due to stat and equipment randomization. But I guess you probably play 5e, where all enemies of the same type are literally identical.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>We fight in a gladiator arena >I see opponent striking various foes >I can assess his highs and lows >Knowing well what i can take i fgure out i can tank his best, possible sword swing at least once
This situation is enough for you or are you going to screech "muh metagay" once again?
1 month ago
Anonymous
You're now trying to invent plausible scenarios where you can reasonably assess the combat ability of an enemy to justify the ridiculous behavior you initially championed where you simply target whichever enemy you have metaknowledge to know won't kill you. Why are you doing this? Why do you not just play the game normally?
1 month ago
Anonymous
>You're now trying to invent plausible scenarios where you can reasonably assess the combat ability of an enemy
Ok, is this scenario justifiable or not? Answer the question, we can discuss the implications past that.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Depends on more details than you have given. The GM should not be making it clear to you how much damage an enemy who is not in combat with you is doing to random strangers on a battlefield. You cannot know the HP of the other combatants, you cannot know the damage of the attacker, not without some kind of special implement or GM fiat.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Implying anon plays at all
1 month ago
Anonymous
>But I guess you probably play 5e, where all enemies of the same type are literally identical.
Enemies of the same type still have HP dice listed even in 5e. Not rolling them makes you a cuck (a term for a man who lets other men frick his wife).
1 month ago
Anonymous
Good, now you are roleplaying. The GM's favour is upon you. Sadly, not everyone is like you and instead prefer to rollplay.
Metagaming. Not rollplaying.
Regardless, rollplaying is not a great word to use disparagingly. DM tells me to roll for something, I roll, DM declares success/failure and either DM or I, or both of us, describe how the success/failure happened based on the roll.
Rolls are merely an abstraction for the roleplaying. And you should be using rolls to drive your roleplaying. The reverse is inspiration.
I know what you mean. But there has to be a better word to describe people who just want to roll through everything w/o caring about any of the RP aspects. Then again, those types of people have a huge overlap with metagamers.
There is a fundamental difference between roleplaying and rollplaying. Roleplaying is acting in your role. Rollplaying is autistic obsession with the mechanics and numbers that you don’t care about the role you are playing.
>This isn't some pseudoscience like Sapir-Whorf
Sapir-Whorf isn't pseudoscience, it's just a hypothesis. The entire premise is that they can't prove it conclusively one way or another, but there seems to be something there worth exploring when technology advances.
Ironsworn’s moves. Specifically, the various approaches some of them have. Really makes you consider not just what your character is doing, but HOW they’re doing it.
>Tomkin took inspiration from the Powered by the Apocalypse system, among other systems. The player narrates the story and then makes Moves when it makes narrative sense.
1 month ago
Anonymous
See picrel as an example
Ah, got it, you’re the guy I BTFO here
It is ONLY roleplay if there is a level of separation. You are thinking of psychotic delusion disorder.
(This post brought to you by the anti-nuance guild)
1 month ago
Anonymous
what if the battle doesn't happen in a blur tho
1 month ago
Anonymous
Then you use the more in-depth battle moves. I just posted this one because I like the examples.
1 month ago
Anonymous
1 month ago
Anonymous
The clock is now at 9
1 month ago
Anonymous
Oh god I still have flashbacks about those stupid fricking clocks. It's like they skim read the 4th ed DnD skill challenges and thought "Like that, only worse"
1 month ago
Anonymous
so you literally just roll attacks with whatever stat you narrate yourself to be using? why wouldn’t you just always roll with your best stat?
and if picking the biggest number would be “power gaming” that would ruin the game, then it’s a shit game where you have to intentionally choose an obviously inferior option to try to enjoy it. >lol do you wanna roll with +2 or +4? and don’t give me any shit like picking +4 again
1 month ago
Anonymous
That is indeed the problem. Once you realize you choose what skill you use nobody would ever use the weaker one because why would you?
> Its le ebic fail forward
No it isn't, it's a shit system that made failure too likely then had to compensate by making failure and success indistinguishable.
1 month ago
Anonymous
why are you replying to copypastes?
she didnt even bother to alter the post.
1 month ago
Anonymous
its called samegayging
1 month ago
Anonymous
strange system and unrealistic. Sounds a bit "and they fought, anyway, moving on with the story".
Why do you need a system that's specifically built for pretending to be your fricking character? You don't need "moves" on your character sheet to make fricking believe.
There's a reason why most systems (including D&D) only cover combat, movement, character sustainment/conditions and a few social encounter resolution mechanics (the OG 2d6 reaction roll being the best)
Maybe you homosexuals need specific rules for "roleplaying" so you don't eat up all the session time play acting like theater kids but the rest of the TTRPG world does not.
Moves are triggered by roleplay. They exist to force you to roll dice after roleplaying to find out what happens. You don't use them like you call for a short rest in D&D. If you do, you're moronic and failed to read the book telling you not to do that over and over.
you can't undo wotc or vidya brainrot, but if you start someone off with TSR, they can actually roleplay, even if it's still in service of being a tomb-raiding murderhobo. Talking down enemies when you're outnumbered, attracting and retaining hirelings, and especially actually describing your actions because you can't just rolls a skill all really help incentivize roleplay with mechanical benefits.
Great way to put it, though I'd also add that the mechanics of Apocalypse World and its spinoffs are way more linear than even a normal d20 fantasy game, because the only thing you have time to do is react to oncoming clocks as best as you can. Worse, even the GM is enslaved by the clock system. I like clocks themselves, for some things, but the fact that they're the whole of how Apocalypse World arbitrates its sandbox makes the game more constraining for the players and GM (or MC/emcee, whatever) than anything I've otherwise run or played.
It's not roleplaying if you don't actually think of yourself as the character. It's no different from dispassionately reading passages from a book out loud.
Looking at it from these two perspectives, PbtA might make a good basis for solo rpgs. Structured time length for events, disassociation with the character, perfect for creative writing exercises, which, at the end of the day, really is what a solo rpg is. A creative writing exercise with dice to keep it interesting.
Creative or not, it’s still a system based on the dullest type of media, TV show scripts. Seriously every other hack following Apocalypse World has been indistinguishable from their source. Aside from the restrictive moves, the system’s only consistency has been its lack of codification and ineffective use of flavour text, all to make primetime programming, to make freedom into formula.
Perhaps the die was cast when Adam Koebel was hired to work on Monsterhearts; he made sure the system would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody, just ridiculously profitable IP shovelware for TV shows. PbtA may be creative (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-OSR in its refusal of freedom, openness and liberty. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to. >a-at least the moves are good though
"No!" The moves are dreadful; the session transcripts are terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character made an attack, the player instead said that the character "went aggro on them."
I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Baker’s mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that his game allows for no other style of imagination. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Apocalypse World by the same Vince Gilligan. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are playing Apocalypse World at 14 or 15, then when they get older they will go on to write for Breaking Bad." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you play "PbtA" you are, in fact, trained to write for TV.
It's the Harry Potter copypasta, but talking about PbtA. You're welcome for the spoonfeed
1 month ago
Anonymous
No it’s not
1 month ago
Anonymous
Gotta love seeing the memes evolve like this.
I’ve never seen anyone able to give examples of rules which encourage roleplaying.
Honestly, you're may have to look at some of the "no one actually knows anyone who has played this" kind of games, like Chuubo's Marvelous Wish Granting Engine or maybe Wisher-Theurgist-Fatalist (good fricking luck reading the rulebook for that one).
For CMWGE it's a co-op story based (not really about combat) so you need a group that's legit sold on the campaign concept and likes to RP to get the most out of it, pic related.
Like most ttrpgs, the GM gives "Action XP" for you playing the game like most systems, but you get Emotion XP for good RP - but it's awarded determined by other players, which reminds me of stunting from Exalted. (The default rules keep players from hogging the spotlight by limiting how often you can get EmotionXP, but if you can probably not use that rule after your group plays a couple sessions).
It talks about going aggro because that's the game mechanical term for what the character is doing.
You might as well act shocked that when you decided to make tally marks for words like "HP" or "save" the envelope gets clogged with marks.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Yeah that’s the point of the copypasta. Imbeciles like
pretend like their preferred flavour of game is le ebin real rp because it’s sooo immersive, but in reality it’s just basic slop they’ve imprinted on like a duckling.
>PbtA might make a good basis for solo rpgs
You would think so but it feels just like
Exactly how I feel about PbtA
I can get immersed in GURPS because shit gets modeled down to the details, I can't get immersed in PbtA because it keeps telling you it's a game and won't ever let you forget
You stated it boldly like it's self-evident but it's not. There's no justification for your weird opinion here. The roleplaying cues the rolls and continues based on the results, just like every other tabletop roleplaying game.
It's not roleplaying if you don't actually think of yourself as the character. It's no different from dispassionately reading passages from a book out loud.
1) That's not how those games work. They don't require that you don't do that and in fact function better if you do.
2) That's not how the hobby works. Some people do that but not all people. It's not even the most popular way to think about the character-player relationship, and self-insert in that way is typically considered childish. I don't necessarily agree with that but you're really talking out of your ass to pretend it doesn't exist as a sentiment. There's a huge difference between "what would this character do" and "what would I, Melf the Male Elf, do now?"
It's the same homosexual thats been spamming a group of RPG talking heads.
1 month ago
Anonymous
TowerGuard DMs reply video back & forths with the early Brigade is pretty lulz.
If you want posting Content, also have a look at the old Gloy archive from back when he was in Japan, before he transitioned.
It is ONLY roleplay if there is a level of separation. You are thinking of psychotic delusion disorder.
(This post brought to you by the anti-nuance guild)
Exactly how I feel about PbtA
I can get immersed in GURPS because shit gets modeled down to the details, I can't get immersed in PbtA because it keeps telling you it's a game and won't ever let you forget
I took a bunch of 3.5 players who had played for years and had nothing but failed, miserably boring clusterfrick games behind them, dropped Fantasy Craft on their laps, and ran a 2 year long campaign that was far more character and story driven, despite FC being a system that lets you build completely broken murder machine characters. It was still d20s and all the familiar stuff, just in a different package, but the differences were enough to break habits they'd formed over nearly a decade of trying and failing to have fun with 3.5 and 4e.
Honestly, probably, yeah. Not in a prescriptive, causative sense, but rather in that different people favor different systems for different reasons, leading to NPCs generally picking systems that are in line with their programmed behavior, while people with agency and ability to divorce themselves from their selves will naturally gravitate towards more cerebral experiences.
So the relationship is probably relative, even though the correlation is hard.
Obviously. I met people who struggle with D&D since they want to role-play more, but locked in the D&D and forced to role-play.
For example, one guy like to play in character, speak with other players in-character and don't really want to always follow the railroad of DM. But when it comes to fight he just uses most broken and optimized builds by default since it is the optimal way to end with roll-play quickly and "in the right way".
As a causality argument, it's weak at best.
Above anon said it best that people are likely to gravitate to systems that pique their interests the most, but I have seen excellent roleplayers in D&D of all stripes, and rollplayers in WOD.
It's more that there are exceptions that prove the rule. People playing a combat heavy system with minimal other avenues for engaging with the mechanics or meaningfully contributing to the experience, rewards investing all your attention and focus into combat, while devaluing other playstyles. The longer you engage with that kind of play, the more invested you become in being efficient and effective, leading to minmaxing and chasing the "meta" and so on.
Another group can take the same system and run an elaborate low-to-no combat soap opera where they actively avoid and do not engage with the mechanics at all, but at that point you can't put that on the system. That's a group of friends talking and having a good time. The usual refrain of "our best sessions are the ones where we hardly rolled any dice" are an unintended criticism against the system they are attempting to credit for the fun they created for themselves.
so many filters >must be a reader >must have both left and right brain fully developed >must be weird enough to like rpgs >must have developmental moronation leading to playing babby game in adulthood
low percentage doesn't even begin to describe it.
>Is here a relationship between system and ability to roleplay?
Here's a video by some guys called Black Lodge Games that does a good job of breaking down the two and how they apply in play.
They've also got some solid VtM & OWoD vids some of which go back close to a decade.
Yes. DnD encourages players to do the "right" thing instead of what their characters would do. It straightjackets them with alignments. XP is gained from killing stuff.
Anyone who ever tried to teach VtM or L5R to a DnDtard knows it's like deprogramming a cult member.
For L5R I think there's correlation to the clan you choose to start rp'ing as, and how you understand Bushido within the setting. Throwing people to the Crab or Unicorn gives them an easy way to ignore that. I think there might be something to getting people to play Lion first - not to be perfect Bushido-ites, but to know the mindset of trying to apply Bushido to everything. Then to see that all the clans do this as much as the Lion, albeit to different results.
Pretty accurate when it comes to the ordering, however, instead of "ability to roleplay" I'd say "quality of roleplay" instead. The same people who can't think of anything to say in one game can be really active and in their role in another.
There is, in that the system makes demands and applies restrictions, and roleplay flourishes in between those things. Roleplay dies when the system is deaf and dumb like DnD. When it doesn't know what it's asking and doesn't have any opinions.
Something like Monsters and Other Childish Things will give you a memorable game without fail, because every part of what it asks of you is weird and interesting and every restriction is meaningful. I've forgotten more DnD games than the ones I remember playing.
I'm old enough to remember when one of the loudest complaints regarding 4e was no mechanical systems for roleplaying, because 3.PFgays are incapable of roleplaying if they're not rolling dice every ten seconds. Out of all the things wrong with 4e, these people were fixated on something that was an improvement.
Many systems praised for roleplay quality do in fact have many mechanics that directly impinge on it. Call of Cthulhu's Sanity mechanic, White Wolf products in general having at least one key statistic relating to psychological health in the face of the mangled horror tropes, Exalted in particular having one of supremely few social systems considered worth using by a remotely decent number of people, and the legions of narrative mechanics.
3.x roleplay mechanics are mostly tied up in fluff requirements and Alignment, usually work terribly if they work at all, and always spit out an incredibly bizarre edge-case SOMEWHERE in the interactions, but it's still better structure than how 4e kept fricking up skill challenges and lost basically everything else including enemies to furnish Evil campaigns.
A total void of roleplay mechanics means the game is not a roleplaying game. There needs to be a fluff-crunch interface for the roleplay to be part of the game, instead of freeform RP giving a vague direction to a non-roleplaying game.
I would say no unless the system actively employs dogshit social checks that completely destroy any reason to roleplay because everything is decided with a moronic swingy roll of a d20. Your clever, well-informed act to get past the guards will fail if you roll bad on Persuasion no matter what while the fricking bard who decides to entertain them by playing the flute with his anus will get through even if the idea was moronic to begin with. But then the manual reminds you that using common sense and ignoring rules when you feel like they shouldn't be used should prevent this sort of thing from happening which is the perfect copout for filling a manual with shit rules that make the game worse.
I don't understand why people think you need a system for roleplaying. if you aren't "rollplaying" then you are basically just playing pretend. what is the point of rolling dice then? what is the real benefit of rolling your social stat in the storyteller system?
>what is the point of rolling dice then?
To determine what degree of success or failure occurs when the outcome of something is in question. That's the only purpose they serve. >what is the real benefit of rolling your social stat in the storyteller system?
Ideally, none; you should be capable enough of persuading someone without a roll, aka preventing the outcome of being in question. But sometimes the NPC you're speaking to is stubborn, or doesn't like you, or some other factor is at play, and the outcome is in question, and so while you might help make the roll easier with a good argument you might still need to roll, as the outcome is in question.
You do not, however, need an entire section of the rulebook dedicated to some autistic social combat system or tons of rules moroning this when a simple skill check will suffice.
what is the fun of rolling though? if you are fighting a monster in a combat focused game like d&d you aren't just rolling your fighting skill to kill a monster. ostensibly you are having fun engaging with the mechanics of the game. that level of engagement doesn't exist when you are roleplaying. rolling dice at that point is just pointless symbolism and you might as well just decide by consensus which way the story will proceed. basically I am saying that if you aren't rollplaying there is no need for a system at all.
Dice exists so that the universe isnt deterministic, people loath predictability unless autistic. There is a reason games of chance are far more satisfying to the majority than predictable ones.
How many millions of people play % based games vs how many thousands play chess or chequers?
1 month ago
Anonymous
dice only exist to be a random number generator as part of a greater system. if you are looking at something like combat in a combat focused game that system has a reasonable amount of depth to it. on the other hand when it comes to rules light games or roleplaying skill checks there's basically nothing to it.
>what is the fun of rolling though?
i genuinely hope this is trolling and you aren't unironically asking what the point of a random chance is.
here's a hint: there are multiple possible outcomes
when you are rolling the dice to attack a goblin you aren't simply rolling to see if you win the entire fight, or even to see if you kill that one goblin. you are only rolling to see if you hit that one goblin with one attack. the roll is affected by multiple factors like where you are positioned on the map, limited use abilities, equipment, and so on. one fight involves the entire party and could use several pages worth of rules. on the other hand what are you doing when you roll a non-combat skill in most games? you're making a single roll for a single character with no interaction or anything. does a lock have hp that you have to deplete by making multiple rolls and using the correct tools and character abilties? no, you just roll once and it unlocks or it doesn't. what's the point? that's hardly gaming. you might as well just say "my character unlocks the door because he's a thief and it makes narrative sense for him to be able to" and everyone else can just agree because there's nothing exciting about making a single roll to confirm that your character is actually capable at what you designed him to be capable of, or else fail at something he was supposed to be good at.
1 month ago
Anonymous
No, its determining if the thief has awareness of that specific lock or the ability to unlock it.
I do lockpicking as a hobby, watching movies etc. Some locks i can unlock in seconds, others takes me minutes. New locks need to be learned, sometimes you can't do it in a reasonable amount of time for a situation like that, i.e. being chased etc.
Thats why there is a DC, higher the DC lower the chances of your char being able to know the specific lock, or lore, or notion, or concept.
Being a thief doesn't make you able to unlock everything, thats nonsense, same as being able to drive a bycicle does not make you able to fly a plane. "But he's a pilot!"
That GM's do not weave such checks in situations that aren't trivial is a different conversation and has nothing to do with dice. You are talking about situations that aren't made in a way that are satisfying, not the system itself anon.
Those checks should be meaningful, and most times aren't. This is a problem with players not liking failure and doing nothing but performative challenges, again, not a problem with the system, but with the GM and the party setting the difficulty level of it all to "on rails".
1 month ago
Anonymous
you're completely missing the point. imagine if there was a game about lock picking. there might be rules for different tools and tumbler designs and shit. you might have to use many different skills just to open one lock. in this hypothetical game opening a lock would be a "playing the game" event. on the other hand opening a lock in a combat game like d&d is basically just going through the motions. if the system doesn't care about it enough to give it in depth mechanics what is the point of pretending that a one and done roll is important?
if you were playing a game and a fight against an elder dragon was reduced to a simple "roll strength+combat to see if you can kill it" that would be extremely underwhelming if you were expecting a combat game like d&d, but that's exactly what even "meaningful" skill checks in most systems amount to.
1 month ago
Anonymous
I disagree
Again its the context that matters. A battle is a cooperative endeavor everyone is taking turns and is invested, watching and planning next moves, adjusting them as the battle progresses.
Why in the ever loving hell would you make a mini game about tumblers for a single character to do, which could take 5 minutes, while everyone else is... bored?
It needs to be snappy, it could be a bit more complex, sure, but again the main issue is it not being meaningful, not that its 'simple'.
Meaningful is about consequence ingame, not the system around opening a lock.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Why in the ever loving hell would you
see every hacking minigame ever made
1 month ago
Anonymous
not for a ttrpg anon with 5-6 people.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>A battle is a cooperative endeavor everyone is taking turns and is invested, watching and planning next moves, adjusting them as the battle progresses.
and that only happens because the game is built around it. in a game where combat is abstracted to a single skill check it wouldn't be mechanically exciting at all. imagine you are playing a game about running a farming village. all of the game mechanics and dice rolling revolves around farming. there's no skill for combat at all. you can get attacked by wild animals but as long as you have a sheep dog it's automatically assumed that you fight them off successfully. in the context of this game, would it be any more fun if you had a combat skill that doesn't even get used in every session and does nothing but add a random chance to fail at something that you would normally gloss over?
you don't need to roll dice to roleplay. leave the dice rolls to the one thing that the system actually has depth for, whether it is combat, farming, or anything else.
>what is the fun of rolling though?
i genuinely hope this is trolling and you aren't unironically asking what the point of a random chance is.
here's a hint: there are multiple possible outcomes
What are you talking about?
I stare at white walls or close my eyes all the time when thinking visually, it has nothing to do with light. You project an image on top of what you are seeing, like augmented reality does. That image can interact with itself like gears moving.
That image does not interact with reality or what you are seeing, but it is there.
You likely do not possess this ability thus is hard for you to get it, but its very real. It can be trained, i trained mine, but there has to be a seed to begin with. >how light works!
And how do visual illusions work anon? Your brain is whats interpreting what the eyes receive.
And now you discovered the basis for a lot of phylosophy on the nature of reality.
I hope you are under 21, or you are years behind the average person in life experience.
Or trash education system i guess
Your inability to understand abstract concepts like visualization speaks to profound mental deficiency.
He might just not be able to do it, his reference for reality is missing something.
Might just not be aware, not unable to understand things beyond his own perception, dont rush to call him moronic just yet.
[...]
Anon.
Sally and Ann are in a room, Sally had a box, Ann has basket.
Sally puts a doll on her box and goes to the toilet.
While Sally is away, Ann grabs the doll and puts it in her basket.
Sally comes back to the room, where does Sally look for the doll?
Okay but do people actually SEE when they visualize? I'm confused whether it’s visualization or imagination. When people visualize do they SEE like real life (or a movie) quality in their heads? For me i can sort of sense or feel or know the image or object as well as the colors and the details, i can also make it move (while sensing it NOT seeing it) all i see is the back of my eyelids (blackness), so if i imagine a dog running i sense the that the dog is running in my head, also i can do that without closing my eyes like a thought in images or something and i want to know if this count as aphantasia.
If I asked you to draw a map or complex visual design from memory, could you put down one part, then put down a disconnected part (e.g. Spain and Norway, one of the stars on the Aussie flag and then the Union Jack in its appropriate relative position, etc)? Not perfectly, but generally? If not, you probably have aphantasia, though I have heard there are do-it-at-home cures available for free on the internet. If so, how would you mentally map out where to draw B after having drawn A?
It's both. You can make your imagination into hi-def visualizations with practice. It takes effort and focus, and it helps to be looking at sunlight streaming through a window or some other simple random stimulus (you need less and less of it as you practice).
If you train it, you can spot the moment your visualization is now in color, you can feel when it starts to have weight. You tap into the parts of your brain that let you dream, but while awake.
He might just not be able to do it, his reference for reality is missing something.
Might just not be aware, not unable to understand things beyond his own perception, dont rush to call him moronic just yet.
Aphantasia is a good litmus test to see if you’re a fricking dumbass or not.
You can’t seriously believe you actually SEE when you think, right?
Do people not understand how light works? What? Really? REALLY??
Anon.
Sally and Ann are in a room, Sally had a box, Ann has basket.
Sally puts a doll on her box and goes to the toilet.
While Sally is away, Ann grabs the doll and puts it in her basket.
Sally comes back to the room, where does Sally look for the doll?
>He might just not be able to do it, his reference for reality is missing something.
Every time the topic comes up, there's always at least one brainlet who reads a phrase like "the ability to see pictures in your mind" and cannot get past the word "see" because he can't differentiate between literal and figurative concepts.
I don't understand what the substantial difference between BRP/Traveller and WoD/Shadowrun actually is supposed to be in this context. I read a Traveller book and it's just roll +bonus stuff, much like WoD is just roll stats stuff.
dice lag and metcurrencies combine to create a separation as too much time is spent dicking with and talking about mechanics
it's really about how they feel and move at the table, and dice pool games are just slower and more plodding
>that is not a thing that exists that you can study
Hm. Just a few of the (barely credible) universities that offer graduate degrees in the not-a-thing-that-exists:
USC, University of Utah, Rochester Institute of Technology, UC Santa Cruz, MIT, Michigan State, SMU, Georgia Tech, Texas A&M, University of Florida, Penn, Clemson, LSU...
>Is here a relationship between system and ability to roleplay?
Game systems encourage and discourage certain behaviors and playstyles by their mechanics.
The combat system of D&D 5e is designed around many minimally-dangerous encounters without a chance to rest; the combat system in WoD is designed around singular, very dangerous combats. In D&D, you receive XP for killing things, and worthless gold that can't buy anything also for killing things; in World of Darkness, you receive XP over time, and often can only "level up" (getting a Totem, rising a generation, etc) by taking specific, coherent, in-universe actions. This means D&D is all about killing boatloads of trash monsters with minimal interconnective tissue, while World of Darkness is about thoughtfully handling limited, peer opponents. These realities, in turn, shape the play experience.
You can still roleplay either way, but it's a lot harder to roleplay whatever stupid shit D&D is supposed to be.
Nothing of narrative significance has no-questions-asked prices in 5e. It is in fact up to the DM to make up the entirety of the non-adventuring economy for shit to spend on. This is very, VERY bad for the rate you gain GP.
I can make up a chart for Wildspace systems or rules for starship combat that don't suck dick, that doesn't mean it's in the game. Get WotC's dick out of your mouth.
thats a bad GM who gives out gear and gold like candy I guess.
You use money to invest in your characters.
It should be a limited resource that you gota micro manage in order to optimize your char.
This also likely means the GM and party aren't engaging with the systems for weight, food, medicine, ingredients and so forth. >doesn't use half the systems >complains the game lacks depth
Anon i...
Play battle brothers, cheap on steam, gets you to understand how the game should play in TT as well.
No, systems don't decide a person's ability to roleplay.
This comes from a person's own ability to create and engage hypotheticals by portray the behaviors of someone who isn't themselves acting in accord with the idea that person has lived in the established world their entire lives. That is the bare minimum. You can have a game that's entirely about combat, exploration, and tinkering, with none of the characters uttering a single word, and that's still roleplaying.
Where the game comes in is deciding how the players' roleplaying skill is tested. Proper engagement with games that establish structures for testing consistency of character (which is extremely hard to measure outside of broad terms, especially with custom worlds) can help improve one's ability to roleplay. Improving as/being a writer who cares about internal consistency is actually a great way to improve more advanced roleplaying.
Someone can live their entire life without touching a TTRPG and still have an amazing ability to roleplay, and inversely, there are people who revolve their lives around TTRPGs and roleplay like shit.
> inversely, there are people who revolve their lives around TTRPGs and roleplay like shit.
This is far less paradoxical than you might think.
Its the same reason so much modern media is shit from movies to games.
The people making them have 0 life experience.
Thus they have nothing to drawn upon in order to roleplay, or build a world that makes sense and is engaging. They live their entire lives on their phones interacting digitally, and not living.
Unironically grass touching makes good RP'ers.
>This is far less paradoxical than you might think.
I may have miscommunicated my thoughts; I don't necessarily think it's paradoxical, I just recognize that there are people who can dedicate lots of time to something and still not "get it". To out myself as an autist, one of those things for me is social interaction, and every day for just about my entire life I've gone out in public and attempted talk-no-jutsu. I have improved compared to what I was, but I still don't get it, you know? >Its the same reason so much modern media is shit from movies to games.
The people making them have 0 life experience.
This is also very true; I'm glad there are people who see this, and I feel silly for not bringing that up in my post. >Unironically grass touching makes good RP'ers
Correct! Experiencing behaviors of many people, coming into contact with other ways of thinking, the ranges of societal and philosophical views; these things are all vital to learning roleplay. What better way to learn how to act as someone who isn't yourself by interacting with and observing people who aren't yourself.
And I totally glossed over that... yeesh.
Why? he is clearly autistic, thats how autistic people talk and analyze things, long stream of consciousness, a bit like Trump. Why do you choose type that, and press send? for what purpose?
>This is far less paradoxical than you might think.
I may have miscommunicated my thoughts; I don't necessarily think it's paradoxical, I just recognize that there are people who can dedicate lots of time to something and still not "get it". To out myself as an autist, one of those things for me is social interaction, and every day for just about my entire life I've gone out in public and attempted talk-no-jutsu. I have improved compared to what I was, but I still don't get it, you know? >Its the same reason so much modern media is shit from movies to games.
The people making them have 0 life experience.
This is also very true; I'm glad there are people who see this, and I feel silly for not bringing that up in my post. >Unironically grass touching makes good RP'ers
Correct! Experiencing behaviors of many people, coming into contact with other ways of thinking, the ranges of societal and philosophical views; these things are all vital to learning roleplay. What better way to learn how to act as someone who isn't yourself by interacting with and observing people who aren't yourself.
And I totally glossed over that... yeesh.
Pretty much, hard to get out of your skin if you never seen anyone else and have no real basis to compare. Text based is very low context, so much is missed.
Sometimes. There are some game systems listed that help people with various personality disorders play pretend more comfortably. Some are going to have an easier time with gurps because the numbers make them feel safe, some are going to have an easier time with pbta because the lack of numbers makes them feel safe.
The real issue with >roleplay
is that most humans regardless of that, have a very hard time imagining what other people's lives are like. The best they can manage is subbing in what they them selves are already like into their very limited perspective of someone else's situation. Most people can't really role play in the sense of trying to imagine outside their own experiences, they can only fill in what their current lived being would do in various circumstances. Anything more than that requires a strong sense of self awareness, the capacity to step away from that and the perceptiveness to see other people's perspective. Doesn't happen much and tends to be a decent amount of effort for people who can rather than entertainment. So most ttrpg is play acting. Its like wearing a funny hat for a few hours. Doesn't really matter what the arithmetic is when the hat is on, although some variants make it easier to get there for different people.
Do people really find it that hard? I mean, maybe I would if I hadn't been brought up on it I guess (Mum read Tolkein to me and my sister growing up).
Kind of brings the current state of the industry into a new light - is it just that a load of new players who can't comprehend what roleplay actually is? It'd all the self inserts and crowbarring in of elements like prom, modern politics etc. if they genuinely can't entertain a different mindset.
Its not a new thing, the self insert power fantasies change based on fashion and whatever but its how a majority of humans are. Its a lot of work to actually simulate what other people's lives are like. Most people don't like doing work for fun.
Edgy drow, rastlin ripoffs, kender, etc. have always been self inserts. It doesn't have to be that deep a perspective shift to play most of the games though. There was some variance but some of the oldest proto d&d was run more like a boardgame with pawns rather than roleplay and some was being a vampire hunting cleric or a balrog that was just a hat. Its likely not as starkly all one thing or the other as I'm presenting it here for ease of discussion.
There might be something to how the hats have changed over time, probably a combination of wide spread access to entertainment and genre standardization.
Portraying a fit all person might be easy, and it might not be. But getting emotionally invested, getting enthused to play the character, requires either personal attachment (or an inherent enjoyment of character portrayal, but that’s rare). The easiest way to become attached to a character is through empathy. “He’s literally me”.
You just sound like a cynic. Regular people can grasp the concept of acting out a character without special coaching. All it takes is the willingness to put some thought into it. Characters don't need to be carbon copies of yourself and 99% of people understand that. There's no magic gene to make you able to do it. Everyone knows acting exists and everyone can attempt to act. It's only a single step from that to roleplay and empathy with a fictional self.
Will a character you make have things in common with you? That's very likely, because what you value filters into everything you do. That doesn't magically stop a fictional character from being a separate existence. What makes people be lazy with their portrayals is a social atmosphere that gets in the way and a set of mechanics that fail to encourage it. That's all. There's nothing inherent to the failure, and a person who sucks balls at roleplay can do way better in a different social circle where the practice isn't being tacitly discouraged.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>regular people >willingness to put some thought into it
lmao
1 month ago
Anonymous
You're so special and unique. You're just beyond and above anyone else. God treasures you. Shine on, you're a gift!
1 month ago
Anonymous
Thank you. Continue aspiring to mediocrity as merit through mass.
1 month ago
Anonymous
I am a cynic, but not in this current context. In fact I agree with everything you out down, except for > It's only a single step from that to roleplay and empathy with a fictional self.
Because I’ve played over three hundred characters and only consider myself attached to about a third of them. That may be down to autism, but I don’t think it’s a completely that given the prevalence of mary sues, kinning, self inserts, and whatever the frick kids are doing these days in roleplaying communities.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>kinning
I already regret asking, but
wat
1 month ago
Anonymous
You remember that surge of idiot teens and young adults in the 90s and 00s who genuinely thought they were reincarnated elves? You also had a ton of furries who thought they were reincarnated animals, and they called themselves Otherkin. Nowadays you've got people who are Otherkin for fictional characters on top of the fantasy races and animals.
1 month ago
Anonymous
1 month ago
Anonymous
Look, I won't tell you I've cared about every character I've ever played as soon as I created them, but at the end of the day it's my job to take what happened in the last session and interpret it in a way that drives up my investment. If another character dies, I'll think about the eulogy they'd give and give it in the next one, for example. A boring game might make this hard, but it's still a very small amount of effort required.
Low IQ types have a kind of narcissism where they can't even begin to understand how you're supposed to enjoy something you can't directly project your own self on. If a character isn't meant to be an extension of themselves, they get confused and usually lash out at the idea entirely.
However, it should also be noted that good characters are relatable, and it is a sign of a bad character that they're unrelatable. The true low IQ fake midwit response is the one that falsely imagines relatablility to mean a character is "just like me!!" What it actually means is that you can relate to their perspective, because it's deep enough to simulate in a way that, from their starting point, puts you in a similar place. In other words, you can disagree with them and even consider them to be evil for their values, but they can still be a good character if you're able to explain, without malice, the true reasons they're doing why they're doing what they're doing, and including, critically, why they're not doing the thing you yourself would do or want them to do.
You've missed the mark by a mile because the words "relatable" or "relatability" were never used, and on top of that, you're entire assertion is moronic, as relatability isn't the sole defining quality of a good or bad character.
There's a reason D&D was known for rollplayers. The system is not built for roleplaying. This isn't some pseudoscience like Sapir-Whorf, either, it's what the rules encourage (or don't encourage).
This. Every game, intentionally or no, promotes a certain kind of playstyle and certain kind of engagement. Dnd is mostly interested in being a series of minor tactical skirmishes, with only a thin veneer of anything in between. The non-combat rules are paper thin, and mostly rely on the GM carrying all of that weight with no support from the system itself.
Being mostly interested in combat does not make it a bad game (there are other things that do, but thats neither here nor there) but it does mean that any player who is interested in serious roleplay is going to be the odd one out and probably better off playing another system entirely. Meanwhile, players who enjoy the type and level of engagement that DnD encourages are going to feel out of their depth in any system that asks more from them than a character concept thats only 10 words long and is mostly just a meme.
Contrast this to something on the far opposite side of the spectrum like AdEva: a game where you get a single combat encounter every 3-4 sessions, and most scenes are the PCs bouncing off of each other during group activities/briefings or taking the initiative and setting up their own scenes to pursue personal character goals and investigations that they might not even share the results of with the other players. In a game like AdEva, "the characters have breakfest" might be all the setup for a scene you need and it will probably end with a screaming match in and out of character.
There is no difference between rollplaying and roleplaying. Go back to the theatre club.
>The non-combat rules are paper thin, and mostly rely on the GM carrying all of that weight with no support from the system itself.
This only applies to second edition and onwards.
what a waste of trips.
The very act of responding to the GM asking what do you do is roleplaying. No matter what you homosexuals say.
>I have 9 hp and I know at most he can do 8 hp so I challenge him
Rollplaying, not roleplayng.
Nta but
>Having seen him fight i can assess that i can deflect his best attack at least once, although it would be costly leaving me open for the next one
There, i added some roleplay flavour on top of that
Flavor/fluff is not roleplaying. Roleplaying is making decisions that the character would make given their understanding of a situation, and can be just as dry as the most banal optimized combat drone already is, in its delivery. And you can be a metagaming piece of shit who really heaps on fluff and flavor, too. Arguably those fricks are the worst.
>Roleplaying is making decisions that the character would make given their understanding of a situation
Which i did: my character made an assessment about what he has seen beforehand.
Except that's not true, your character and indeed you as the player have no way of knowing enemy damage or HP without some kind of special ability or tool which can tell you that information. You're simply metagaming.
I can make in-world comparisons you know
And these comparisons should fall far short of the reality due to stat and equipment randomization. But I guess you probably play 5e, where all enemies of the same type are literally identical.
>We fight in a gladiator arena
>I see opponent striking various foes
>I can assess his highs and lows
>Knowing well what i can take i fgure out i can tank his best, possible sword swing at least once
This situation is enough for you or are you going to screech "muh metagay" once again?
You're now trying to invent plausible scenarios where you can reasonably assess the combat ability of an enemy to justify the ridiculous behavior you initially championed where you simply target whichever enemy you have metaknowledge to know won't kill you. Why are you doing this? Why do you not just play the game normally?
>You're now trying to invent plausible scenarios where you can reasonably assess the combat ability of an enemy
Ok, is this scenario justifiable or not? Answer the question, we can discuss the implications past that.
Depends on more details than you have given. The GM should not be making it clear to you how much damage an enemy who is not in combat with you is doing to random strangers on a battlefield. You cannot know the HP of the other combatants, you cannot know the damage of the attacker, not without some kind of special implement or GM fiat.
>Implying anon plays at all
>But I guess you probably play 5e, where all enemies of the same type are literally identical.
Enemies of the same type still have HP dice listed even in 5e. Not rolling them makes you a cuck (a term for a man who lets other men frick his wife).
Good, now you are roleplaying. The GM's favour is upon you. Sadly, not everyone is like you and instead prefer to rollplay.
Metagaming. Not rollplaying.
Regardless, rollplaying is not a great word to use disparagingly. DM tells me to roll for something, I roll, DM declares success/failure and either DM or I, or both of us, describe how the success/failure happened based on the roll.
Rolls are merely an abstraction for the roleplaying. And you should be using rolls to drive your roleplaying. The reverse is inspiration.
I know what you mean. But there has to be a better word to describe people who just want to roll through everything w/o caring about any of the RP aspects. Then again, those types of people have a huge overlap with metagamers.
Definitely both it is, then.
>sit there for four hours, saying nothing, but rolling the dice when told to
I'm wowepwaying
>There is no difference between rollplaying and roleplaying. Go back to the theatre club.
Autism or false-flagging? Impossible to tell.
Probably both.
There is a fundamental difference between roleplaying and rollplaying. Roleplaying is acting in your role. Rollplaying is autistic obsession with the mechanics and numbers that you don’t care about the role you are playing.
Imagine hunting for trips just to waste them on 1/10 bait
>This isn't some pseudoscience like Sapir-Whorf
Sapir-Whorf isn't pseudoscience, it's just a hypothesis. The entire premise is that they can't prove it conclusively one way or another, but there seems to be something there worth exploring when technology advances.
I’ve never seen anyone able to give examples of rules which encourage roleplaying.
Ironsworn’s moves. Specifically, the various approaches some of them have. Really makes you consider not just what your character is doing, but HOW they’re doing it.
How the frick is that bait
>Tomkin took inspiration from the Powered by the Apocalypse system, among other systems. The player narrates the story and then makes Moves when it makes narrative sense.
See picrel as an example
Ah, got it, you’re the guy I BTFO here
what if the battle doesn't happen in a blur tho
Then you use the more in-depth battle moves. I just posted this one because I like the examples.
The clock is now at 9
Oh god I still have flashbacks about those stupid fricking clocks. It's like they skim read the 4th ed DnD skill challenges and thought "Like that, only worse"
so you literally just roll attacks with whatever stat you narrate yourself to be using? why wouldn’t you just always roll with your best stat?
and if picking the biggest number would be “power gaming” that would ruin the game, then it’s a shit game where you have to intentionally choose an obviously inferior option to try to enjoy it.
>lol do you wanna roll with +2 or +4? and don’t give me any shit like picking +4 again
That is indeed the problem. Once you realize you choose what skill you use nobody would ever use the weaker one because why would you?
> Its le ebic fail forward
No it isn't, it's a shit system that made failure too likely then had to compensate by making failure and success indistinguishable.
why are you replying to copypastes?
she didnt even bother to alter the post.
its called samegayging
strange system and unrealistic. Sounds a bit "and they fought, anyway, moving on with the story".
How so? I’ve never read Ironsworn.
Why would the rules matter? Nobody actually read those.
Why do you need a system that's specifically built for pretending to be your fricking character? You don't need "moves" on your character sheet to make fricking believe.
There's a reason why most systems (including D&D) only cover combat, movement, character sustainment/conditions and a few social encounter resolution mechanics (the OG 2d6 reaction roll being the best)
Maybe you homosexuals need specific rules for "roleplaying" so you don't eat up all the session time play acting like theater kids but the rest of the TTRPG world does not.
Moves are triggered by roleplay. They exist to force you to roll dice after roleplaying to find out what happens. You don't use them like you call for a short rest in D&D. If you do, you're moronic and failed to read the book telling you not to do that over and over.
>Moves are triggered by roleplay. They exist to force you to roll dice after roleplaying to find out what happens
Kind of like a reaction roll?
Sure, except actually interesting.
How so?
reaction rolls are great
>#
>There's a reason D&D was known for rollplayers. The system is not built for roleplaying
This don't explain RoLW
not before WotC.
you can't undo wotc or vidya brainrot, but if you start someone off with TSR, they can actually roleplay, even if it's still in service of being a tomb-raiding murderhobo. Talking down enemies when you're outnumbered, attracting and retaining hirelings, and especially actually describing your actions because you can't just rolls a skill all really help incentivize roleplay with mechanical benefits.
what's with the pbta double head?
impossible to roleplay in a system that requires authorial stance
pbta is a game where you tell each other a story about playing a roleplaying game
Great way to put it, though I'd also add that the mechanics of Apocalypse World and its spinoffs are way more linear than even a normal d20 fantasy game, because the only thing you have time to do is react to oncoming clocks as best as you can. Worse, even the GM is enslaved by the clock system. I like clocks themselves, for some things, but the fact that they're the whole of how Apocalypse World arbitrates its sandbox makes the game more constraining for the players and GM (or MC/emcee, whatever) than anything I've otherwise run or played.
Looking at it from these two perspectives, PbtA might make a good basis for solo rpgs. Structured time length for events, disassociation with the character, perfect for creative writing exercises, which, at the end of the day, really is what a solo rpg is. A creative writing exercise with dice to keep it interesting.
Creative or not, it’s still a system based on the dullest type of media, TV show scripts. Seriously every other hack following Apocalypse World has been indistinguishable from their source. Aside from the restrictive moves, the system’s only consistency has been its lack of codification and ineffective use of flavour text, all to make primetime programming, to make freedom into formula.
Perhaps the die was cast when Adam Koebel was hired to work on Monsterhearts; he made sure the system would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody, just ridiculously profitable IP shovelware for TV shows. PbtA may be creative (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-OSR in its refusal of freedom, openness and liberty. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.
>a-at least the moves are good though
"No!" The moves are dreadful; the session transcripts are terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character made an attack, the player instead said that the character "went aggro on them."
I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Baker’s mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that his game allows for no other style of imagination. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Apocalypse World by the same Vince Gilligan. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are playing Apocalypse World at 14 or 15, then when they get older they will go on to write for Breaking Bad." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you play "PbtA" you are, in fact, trained to write for TV.
Kek, you almost had me, anon
Wdym?
It's the Harry Potter copypasta, but talking about PbtA. You're welcome for the spoonfeed
No it’s not
Gotta love seeing the memes evolve like this.
Honestly, you're may have to look at some of the "no one actually knows anyone who has played this" kind of games, like Chuubo's Marvelous Wish Granting Engine or maybe Wisher-Theurgist-Fatalist (good fricking luck reading the rulebook for that one).
For CMWGE it's a co-op story based (not really about combat) so you need a group that's legit sold on the campaign concept and likes to RP to get the most out of it, pic related.
Like most ttrpgs, the GM gives "Action XP" for you playing the game like most systems, but you get Emotion XP for good RP - but it's awarded determined by other players, which reminds me of stunting from Exalted. (The default rules keep players from hogging the spotlight by limiting how often you can get EmotionXP, but if you can probably not use that rule after your group plays a couple sessions).
It talks about going aggro because that's the game mechanical term for what the character is doing.
You might as well act shocked that when you decided to make tally marks for words like "HP" or "save" the envelope gets clogged with marks.
Yeah that’s the point of the copypasta. Imbeciles like
pretend like their preferred flavour of game is le ebin real rp because it’s sooo immersive, but in reality it’s just basic slop they’ve imprinted on like a duckling.
>PbtA might make a good basis for solo rpgs
You would think so but it feels just like
In my experience pbta’s gameyness is as much an immersion breaker as having to converse with a GM. But I like gamey games, so probably biased a bit.
You stated it boldly like it's self-evident but it's not. There's no justification for your weird opinion here. The roleplaying cues the rolls and continues based on the results, just like every other tabletop roleplaying game.
It's not roleplaying if you don't actually think of yourself as the character. It's no different from dispassionately reading passages from a book out loud.
True. Actors famously do not play roles.
use error
1) That's not how those games work. They don't require that you don't do that and in fact function better if you do.
2) That's not how the hobby works. Some people do that but not all people. It's not even the most popular way to think about the character-player relationship, and self-insert in that way is typically considered childish. I don't necessarily agree with that but you're really talking out of your ass to pretend it doesn't exist as a sentiment. There's a huge difference between "what would this character do" and "what would I, Melf the Male Elf, do now?"
2d player detected
You need to use your words.
It's the same homosexual thats been spamming a group of RPG talking heads.
TowerGuard DMs reply video back & forths with the early Brigade is pretty lulz.
If you want posting Content, also have a look at the old Gloy archive from back when he was in Japan, before he transitioned.
It is ONLY roleplay if there is a level of separation. You are thinking of psychotic delusion disorder.
(This post brought to you by the anti-nuance guild)
Exactly how I feel about PbtA
I can get immersed in GURPS because shit gets modeled down to the details, I can't get immersed in PbtA because it keeps telling you it's a game and won't ever let you forget
sucks to be such an imaginationlet
I can play 4e and still get immersed in the world and the perspective of my character
In D&D you pretend to be a paladin.
In Dungeon World you pretend to be a D&D player playing a paladin.
I took a bunch of 3.5 players who had played for years and had nothing but failed, miserably boring clusterfrick games behind them, dropped Fantasy Craft on their laps, and ran a 2 year long campaign that was far more character and story driven, despite FC being a system that lets you build completely broken murder machine characters. It was still d20s and all the familiar stuff, just in a different package, but the differences were enough to break habits they'd formed over nearly a decade of trying and failing to have fun with 3.5 and 4e.
Honestly, probably, yeah. Not in a prescriptive, causative sense, but rather in that different people favor different systems for different reasons, leading to NPCs generally picking systems that are in line with their programmed behavior, while people with agency and ability to divorce themselves from their selves will naturally gravitate towards more cerebral experiences.
So the relationship is probably relative, even though the correlation is hard.
You guys respond to even the most obvious of trolls.
Obviously. I met people who struggle with D&D since they want to role-play more, but locked in the D&D and forced to role-play.
For example, one guy like to play in character, speak with other players in-character and don't really want to always follow the railroad of DM. But when it comes to fight he just uses most broken and optimized builds by default since it is the optimal way to end with roll-play quickly and "in the right way".
As a causality argument, it's weak at best.
Above anon said it best that people are likely to gravitate to systems that pique their interests the most, but I have seen excellent roleplayers in D&D of all stripes, and rollplayers in WOD.
It's more that there are exceptions that prove the rule. People playing a combat heavy system with minimal other avenues for engaging with the mechanics or meaningfully contributing to the experience, rewards investing all your attention and focus into combat, while devaluing other playstyles. The longer you engage with that kind of play, the more invested you become in being efficient and effective, leading to minmaxing and chasing the "meta" and so on.
Another group can take the same system and run an elaborate low-to-no combat soap opera where they actively avoid and do not engage with the mechanics at all, but at that point you can't put that on the system. That's a group of friends talking and having a good time. The usual refrain of "our best sessions are the ones where we hardly rolled any dice" are an unintended criticism against the system they are attempting to credit for the fun they created for themselves.
Why is it so hard to find people who can both understand math and role play well?
so many filters
>must be a reader
>must have both left and right brain fully developed
>must be weird enough to like rpgs
>must have developmental moronation leading to playing babby game in adulthood
low percentage doesn't even begin to describe it.
>Is here a relationship between system and ability to roleplay?
Here's a video by some guys called Black Lodge Games that does a good job of breaking down the two and how they apply in play.
They've also got some solid VtM & OWoD vids some of which go back close to a decade.
>Soijaks
Opinion discarded. Present your case like an adult, not a broccoli-haired tourist.
wrong
Your opinions on system don't matter if you can't roleplay.
Yes. DnD encourages players to do the "right" thing instead of what their characters would do. It straightjackets them with alignments. XP is gained from killing stuff.
Anyone who ever tried to teach VtM or L5R to a DnDtard knows it's like deprogramming a cult member.
For L5R I think there's correlation to the clan you choose to start rp'ing as, and how you understand Bushido within the setting. Throwing people to the Crab or Unicorn gives them an easy way to ignore that. I think there might be something to getting people to play Lion first - not to be perfect Bushido-ites, but to know the mindset of trying to apply Bushido to everything. Then to see that all the clans do this as much as the Lion, albeit to different results.
I started with a Crane courtesan who didn't know how to be a bastard. I don't recommend it, but it was pretty fun
Pretty accurate when it comes to the ordering, however, instead of "ability to roleplay" I'd say "quality of roleplay" instead. The same people who can't think of anything to say in one game can be really active and in their role in another.
There is, in that the system makes demands and applies restrictions, and roleplay flourishes in between those things. Roleplay dies when the system is deaf and dumb like DnD. When it doesn't know what it's asking and doesn't have any opinions.
Something like Monsters and Other Childish Things will give you a memorable game without fail, because every part of what it asks of you is weird and interesting and every restriction is meaningful. I've forgotten more DnD games than the ones I remember playing.
I'm old enough to remember when one of the loudest complaints regarding 4e was no mechanical systems for roleplaying, because 3.PFgays are incapable of roleplaying if they're not rolling dice every ten seconds. Out of all the things wrong with 4e, these people were fixated on something that was an improvement.
Many systems praised for roleplay quality do in fact have many mechanics that directly impinge on it. Call of Cthulhu's Sanity mechanic, White Wolf products in general having at least one key statistic relating to psychological health in the face of the mangled horror tropes, Exalted in particular having one of supremely few social systems considered worth using by a remotely decent number of people, and the legions of narrative mechanics.
3.x roleplay mechanics are mostly tied up in fluff requirements and Alignment, usually work terribly if they work at all, and always spit out an incredibly bizarre edge-case SOMEWHERE in the interactions, but it's still better structure than how 4e kept fricking up skill challenges and lost basically everything else including enemies to furnish Evil campaigns.
A total void of roleplay mechanics means the game is not a roleplaying game. There needs to be a fluff-crunch interface for the roleplay to be part of the game, instead of freeform RP giving a vague direction to a non-roleplaying game.
I would say no unless the system actively employs dogshit social checks that completely destroy any reason to roleplay because everything is decided with a moronic swingy roll of a d20. Your clever, well-informed act to get past the guards will fail if you roll bad on Persuasion no matter what while the fricking bard who decides to entertain them by playing the flute with his anus will get through even if the idea was moronic to begin with. But then the manual reminds you that using common sense and ignoring rules when you feel like they shouldn't be used should prevent this sort of thing from happening which is the perfect copout for filling a manual with shit rules that make the game worse.
I don't understand why people think you need a system for roleplaying. if you aren't "rollplaying" then you are basically just playing pretend. what is the point of rolling dice then? what is the real benefit of rolling your social stat in the storyteller system?
>what is the point of rolling dice then?
To determine what degree of success or failure occurs when the outcome of something is in question. That's the only purpose they serve.
>what is the real benefit of rolling your social stat in the storyteller system?
Ideally, none; you should be capable enough of persuading someone without a roll, aka preventing the outcome of being in question. But sometimes the NPC you're speaking to is stubborn, or doesn't like you, or some other factor is at play, and the outcome is in question, and so while you might help make the roll easier with a good argument you might still need to roll, as the outcome is in question.
You do not, however, need an entire section of the rulebook dedicated to some autistic social combat system or tons of rules moroning this when a simple skill check will suffice.
what is the fun of rolling though? if you are fighting a monster in a combat focused game like d&d you aren't just rolling your fighting skill to kill a monster. ostensibly you are having fun engaging with the mechanics of the game. that level of engagement doesn't exist when you are roleplaying. rolling dice at that point is just pointless symbolism and you might as well just decide by consensus which way the story will proceed. basically I am saying that if you aren't rollplaying there is no need for a system at all.
blah blah blah
a strong argument but I'm still not convinced
Dice exists so that the universe isnt deterministic, people loath predictability unless autistic. There is a reason games of chance are far more satisfying to the majority than predictable ones.
How many millions of people play % based games vs how many thousands play chess or chequers?
dice only exist to be a random number generator as part of a greater system. if you are looking at something like combat in a combat focused game that system has a reasonable amount of depth to it. on the other hand when it comes to rules light games or roleplaying skill checks there's basically nothing to it.
when you are rolling the dice to attack a goblin you aren't simply rolling to see if you win the entire fight, or even to see if you kill that one goblin. you are only rolling to see if you hit that one goblin with one attack. the roll is affected by multiple factors like where you are positioned on the map, limited use abilities, equipment, and so on. one fight involves the entire party and could use several pages worth of rules. on the other hand what are you doing when you roll a non-combat skill in most games? you're making a single roll for a single character with no interaction or anything. does a lock have hp that you have to deplete by making multiple rolls and using the correct tools and character abilties? no, you just roll once and it unlocks or it doesn't. what's the point? that's hardly gaming. you might as well just say "my character unlocks the door because he's a thief and it makes narrative sense for him to be able to" and everyone else can just agree because there's nothing exciting about making a single roll to confirm that your character is actually capable at what you designed him to be capable of, or else fail at something he was supposed to be good at.
No, its determining if the thief has awareness of that specific lock or the ability to unlock it.
I do lockpicking as a hobby, watching movies etc. Some locks i can unlock in seconds, others takes me minutes. New locks need to be learned, sometimes you can't do it in a reasonable amount of time for a situation like that, i.e. being chased etc.
Thats why there is a DC, higher the DC lower the chances of your char being able to know the specific lock, or lore, or notion, or concept.
Being a thief doesn't make you able to unlock everything, thats nonsense, same as being able to drive a bycicle does not make you able to fly a plane. "But he's a pilot!"
That GM's do not weave such checks in situations that aren't trivial is a different conversation and has nothing to do with dice. You are talking about situations that aren't made in a way that are satisfying, not the system itself anon.
Those checks should be meaningful, and most times aren't. This is a problem with players not liking failure and doing nothing but performative challenges, again, not a problem with the system, but with the GM and the party setting the difficulty level of it all to "on rails".
you're completely missing the point. imagine if there was a game about lock picking. there might be rules for different tools and tumbler designs and shit. you might have to use many different skills just to open one lock. in this hypothetical game opening a lock would be a "playing the game" event. on the other hand opening a lock in a combat game like d&d is basically just going through the motions. if the system doesn't care about it enough to give it in depth mechanics what is the point of pretending that a one and done roll is important?
if you were playing a game and a fight against an elder dragon was reduced to a simple "roll strength+combat to see if you can kill it" that would be extremely underwhelming if you were expecting a combat game like d&d, but that's exactly what even "meaningful" skill checks in most systems amount to.
I disagree
Again its the context that matters. A battle is a cooperative endeavor everyone is taking turns and is invested, watching and planning next moves, adjusting them as the battle progresses.
Why in the ever loving hell would you make a mini game about tumblers for a single character to do, which could take 5 minutes, while everyone else is... bored?
It needs to be snappy, it could be a bit more complex, sure, but again the main issue is it not being meaningful, not that its 'simple'.
Meaningful is about consequence ingame, not the system around opening a lock.
>Why in the ever loving hell would you
see every hacking minigame ever made
not for a ttrpg anon with 5-6 people.
>A battle is a cooperative endeavor everyone is taking turns and is invested, watching and planning next moves, adjusting them as the battle progresses.
and that only happens because the game is built around it. in a game where combat is abstracted to a single skill check it wouldn't be mechanically exciting at all. imagine you are playing a game about running a farming village. all of the game mechanics and dice rolling revolves around farming. there's no skill for combat at all. you can get attacked by wild animals but as long as you have a sheep dog it's automatically assumed that you fight them off successfully. in the context of this game, would it be any more fun if you had a combat skill that doesn't even get used in every session and does nothing but add a random chance to fail at something that you would normally gloss over?
you don't need to roll dice to roleplay. leave the dice rolls to the one thing that the system actually has depth for, whether it is combat, farming, or anything else.
>what is the fun of rolling though?
i genuinely hope this is trolling and you aren't unironically asking what the point of a random chance is.
here's a hint: there are multiple possible outcomes
Rolled 4 (1d6)
Let me see a six!
Aphantasia is a good litmus test to see if you’re a fricking dumbass or not.
You can’t seriously believe you actually SEE when you think, right?
Do people not understand how light works? What? Really? REALLY??
What are you talking about?
I stare at white walls or close my eyes all the time when thinking visually, it has nothing to do with light. You project an image on top of what you are seeing, like augmented reality does. That image can interact with itself like gears moving.
That image does not interact with reality or what you are seeing, but it is there.
You likely do not possess this ability thus is hard for you to get it, but its very real. It can be trained, i trained mine, but there has to be a seed to begin with.
>how light works!
And how do visual illusions work anon? Your brain is whats interpreting what the eyes receive.
And now you discovered the basis for a lot of phylosophy on the nature of reality.
I hope you are under 21, or you are years behind the average person in life experience.
Or trash education system i guess
You failed the test
Okay but do people actually SEE when they visualize? I'm confused whether it’s visualization or imagination. When people visualize do they SEE like real life (or a movie) quality in their heads? For me i can sort of sense or feel or know the image or object as well as the colors and the details, i can also make it move (while sensing it NOT seeing it) all i see is the back of my eyelids (blackness), so if i imagine a dog running i sense the that the dog is running in my head, also i can do that without closing my eyes like a thought in images or something and i want to know if this count as aphantasia.
If I asked you to draw a map or complex visual design from memory, could you put down one part, then put down a disconnected part (e.g. Spain and Norway, one of the stars on the Aussie flag and then the Union Jack in its appropriate relative position, etc)? Not perfectly, but generally? If not, you probably have aphantasia, though I have heard there are do-it-at-home cures available for free on the internet. If so, how would you mentally map out where to draw B after having drawn A?
It's both. You can make your imagination into hi-def visualizations with practice. It takes effort and focus, and it helps to be looking at sunlight streaming through a window or some other simple random stimulus (you need less and less of it as you practice).
If you train it, you can spot the moment your visualization is now in color, you can feel when it starts to have weight. You tap into the parts of your brain that let you dream, but while awake.
You can’t be this stupid
p-zombies are all around us, and worse yet: they are allowed to vote. And they vote for the other guy, too.
Your inability to understand abstract concepts like visualization speaks to profound mental deficiency.
He might just not be able to do it, his reference for reality is missing something.
Might just not be aware, not unable to understand things beyond his own perception, dont rush to call him moronic just yet.
Anon.
Sally and Ann are in a room, Sally had a box, Ann has basket.
Sally puts a doll on her box and goes to the toilet.
While Sally is away, Ann grabs the doll and puts it in her basket.
Sally comes back to the room, where does Sally look for the doll?
>on
Fat fingers. Phone posting while in a bath at 2am, ill give myself a break on that one.
>He might just not be able to do it, his reference for reality is missing something.
Every time the topic comes up, there's always at least one brainlet who reads a phrase like "the ability to see pictures in your mind" and cannot get past the word "see" because he can't differentiate between literal and figurative concepts.
autism i guess
Yes, and criticizing dnd for not being conductive to roleplay when its a fighting simulator does not make you smart.
Why make a post?
I don't understand what the substantial difference between BRP/Traveller and WoD/Shadowrun actually is supposed to be in this context. I read a Traveller book and it's just roll +bonus stuff, much like WoD is just roll stats stuff.
dice lag and metcurrencies combine to create a separation as too much time is spent dicking with and talking about mechanics
it's really about how they feel and move at the table, and dice pool games are just slower and more plodding
Someone has studied game design theory and desperately needs to tells us about it.
>studied game design theory
that is not a thing that exists that you can study
i have played games and those are my observations
Game design is actually something you can study, but it's not a settled science or anything like that.
>that is not a thing that exists that you can study
Hm. Just a few of the (barely credible) universities that offer graduate degrees in the not-a-thing-that-exists:
USC, University of Utah, Rochester Institute of Technology, UC Santa Cruz, MIT, Michigan State, SMU, Georgia Tech, Texas A&M, University of Florida, Penn, Clemson, LSU...
they all also have theology departments, does that prove that there's a god?
Are you trying to prove that game design theory doesn't exist or that you can't study it?
there is no game design theory
there is just received wisdom
Game design theory is just another way of describing received wisdom. Checkmate, gay
lmao that's vidya shit dumbass
ain't nobody giving out degrees in elfgames
All of those have women's studies departments, does that mean that those are real?
>Is here a relationship between system and ability to roleplay?
Game systems encourage and discourage certain behaviors and playstyles by their mechanics.
The combat system of D&D 5e is designed around many minimally-dangerous encounters without a chance to rest; the combat system in WoD is designed around singular, very dangerous combats. In D&D, you receive XP for killing things, and worthless gold that can't buy anything also for killing things; in World of Darkness, you receive XP over time, and often can only "level up" (getting a Totem, rising a generation, etc) by taking specific, coherent, in-universe actions. This means D&D is all about killing boatloads of trash monsters with minimal interconnective tissue, while World of Darkness is about thoughtfully handling limited, peer opponents. These realities, in turn, shape the play experience.
You can still roleplay either way, but it's a lot harder to roleplay whatever stupid shit D&D is supposed to be.
>worthless gold
brainlet issue
>nooo just make up something to spend gold on teehee
>teehee i didnt take the level 4 skill feat 'spend gold' so its just a number on my sheet
Nothing of narrative significance has no-questions-asked prices in 5e. It is in fact up to the DM to make up the entirety of the non-adventuring economy for shit to spend on. This is very, VERY bad for the rate you gain GP.
I can make up a chart for Wildspace systems or rules for starship combat that don't suck dick, that doesn't mean it's in the game. Get WotC's dick out of your mouth.
what the frick could a person possibly do with money?
is there a correlation between not seeing the apple in your minds eye and not understanding what money is for?
this is the one that gets me. hard to believe this exists.
All someone has to do to fix that is isolate themselves from content chasing for a week and they’ll develop an internal voice.
thats a bad GM who gives out gear and gold like candy I guess.
You use money to invest in your characters.
It should be a limited resource that you gota micro manage in order to optimize your char.
This also likely means the GM and party aren't engaging with the systems for weight, food, medicine, ingredients and so forth.
>doesn't use half the systems
>complains the game lacks depth
Anon i...
Play battle brothers, cheap on steam, gets you to understand how the game should play in TT as well.
same thing you do in real life. buy people.
No, systems don't decide a person's ability to roleplay.
This comes from a person's own ability to create and engage hypotheticals by portray the behaviors of someone who isn't themselves acting in accord with the idea that person has lived in the established world their entire lives. That is the bare minimum. You can have a game that's entirely about combat, exploration, and tinkering, with none of the characters uttering a single word, and that's still roleplaying.
Where the game comes in is deciding how the players' roleplaying skill is tested. Proper engagement with games that establish structures for testing consistency of character (which is extremely hard to measure outside of broad terms, especially with custom worlds) can help improve one's ability to roleplay. Improving as/being a writer who cares about internal consistency is actually a great way to improve more advanced roleplaying.
Someone can live their entire life without touching a TTRPG and still have an amazing ability to roleplay, and inversely, there are people who revolve their lives around TTRPGs and roleplay like shit.
> inversely, there are people who revolve their lives around TTRPGs and roleplay like shit.
This is far less paradoxical than you might think.
Its the same reason so much modern media is shit from movies to games.
The people making them have 0 life experience.
Thus they have nothing to drawn upon in order to roleplay, or build a world that makes sense and is engaging. They live their entire lives on their phones interacting digitally, and not living.
Unironically grass touching makes good RP'ers.
>This is far less paradoxical than you might think.
I may have miscommunicated my thoughts; I don't necessarily think it's paradoxical, I just recognize that there are people who can dedicate lots of time to something and still not "get it".
To out myself as an autist, one of those things for me is social interaction, and every day for just about my entire life I've gone out in public and attempted talk-no-jutsu. I have improved compared to what I was, but I still don't get it, you know?
>Its the same reason so much modern media is shit from movies to games.
The people making them have 0 life experience.
This is also very true; I'm glad there are people who see this, and I feel silly for not bringing that up in my post.
>Unironically grass touching makes good RP'ers
Correct! Experiencing behaviors of many people, coming into contact with other ways of thinking, the ranges of societal and philosophical views; these things are all vital to learning roleplay. What better way to learn how to act as someone who isn't yourself by interacting with and observing people who aren't yourself.
And I totally glossed over that... yeesh.
this post made me vomit in my mouth a little bit
Why? he is clearly autistic, thats how autistic people talk and analyze things, long stream of consciousness, a bit like Trump. Why do you choose type that, and press send? for what purpose?
Pretty much, hard to get out of your skin if you never seen anyone else and have no real basis to compare. Text based is very low context, so much is missed.
for the lulz
Sometimes. There are some game systems listed that help people with various personality disorders play pretend more comfortably. Some are going to have an easier time with gurps because the numbers make them feel safe, some are going to have an easier time with pbta because the lack of numbers makes them feel safe.
The real issue with
>roleplay
is that most humans regardless of that, have a very hard time imagining what other people's lives are like. The best they can manage is subbing in what they them selves are already like into their very limited perspective of someone else's situation. Most people can't really role play in the sense of trying to imagine outside their own experiences, they can only fill in what their current lived being would do in various circumstances. Anything more than that requires a strong sense of self awareness, the capacity to step away from that and the perceptiveness to see other people's perspective. Doesn't happen much and tends to be a decent amount of effort for people who can rather than entertainment. So most ttrpg is play acting. Its like wearing a funny hat for a few hours. Doesn't really matter what the arithmetic is when the hat is on, although some variants make it easier to get there for different people.
Do people really find it that hard? I mean, maybe I would if I hadn't been brought up on it I guess (Mum read Tolkein to me and my sister growing up).
Kind of brings the current state of the industry into a new light - is it just that a load of new players who can't comprehend what roleplay actually is? It'd all the self inserts and crowbarring in of elements like prom, modern politics etc. if they genuinely can't entertain a different mindset.
Its not a new thing, the self insert power fantasies change based on fashion and whatever but its how a majority of humans are. Its a lot of work to actually simulate what other people's lives are like. Most people don't like doing work for fun.
Edgy drow, rastlin ripoffs, kender, etc. have always been self inserts. It doesn't have to be that deep a perspective shift to play most of the games though. There was some variance but some of the oldest proto d&d was run more like a boardgame with pawns rather than roleplay and some was being a vampire hunting cleric or a balrog that was just a hat. Its likely not as starkly all one thing or the other as I'm presenting it here for ease of discussion.
There might be something to how the hats have changed over time, probably a combination of wide spread access to entertainment and genre standardization.
This is so untrue in practice. Portraying a fictional person is easy. You don't need a special brain to do it.
Portraying a fit all person might be easy, and it might not be. But getting emotionally invested, getting enthused to play the character, requires either personal attachment (or an inherent enjoyment of character portrayal, but that’s rare). The easiest way to become attached to a character is through empathy. “He’s literally me”.
Wow I ballsed that post up spectacularly
You just sound like a cynic. Regular people can grasp the concept of acting out a character without special coaching. All it takes is the willingness to put some thought into it. Characters don't need to be carbon copies of yourself and 99% of people understand that. There's no magic gene to make you able to do it. Everyone knows acting exists and everyone can attempt to act. It's only a single step from that to roleplay and empathy with a fictional self.
Will a character you make have things in common with you? That's very likely, because what you value filters into everything you do. That doesn't magically stop a fictional character from being a separate existence. What makes people be lazy with their portrayals is a social atmosphere that gets in the way and a set of mechanics that fail to encourage it. That's all. There's nothing inherent to the failure, and a person who sucks balls at roleplay can do way better in a different social circle where the practice isn't being tacitly discouraged.
>regular people
>willingness to put some thought into it
lmao
You're so special and unique. You're just beyond and above anyone else. God treasures you. Shine on, you're a gift!
Thank you. Continue aspiring to mediocrity as merit through mass.
I am a cynic, but not in this current context. In fact I agree with everything you out down, except for
> It's only a single step from that to roleplay and empathy with a fictional self.
Because I’ve played over three hundred characters and only consider myself attached to about a third of them. That may be down to autism, but I don’t think it’s a completely that given the prevalence of mary sues, kinning, self inserts, and whatever the frick kids are doing these days in roleplaying communities.
>kinning
I already regret asking, but
wat
You remember that surge of idiot teens and young adults in the 90s and 00s who genuinely thought they were reincarnated elves? You also had a ton of furries who thought they were reincarnated animals, and they called themselves Otherkin. Nowadays you've got people who are Otherkin for fictional characters on top of the fantasy races and animals.
Look, I won't tell you I've cared about every character I've ever played as soon as I created them, but at the end of the day it's my job to take what happened in the last session and interpret it in a way that drives up my investment. If another character dies, I'll think about the eulogy they'd give and give it in the next one, for example. A boring game might make this hard, but it's still a very small amount of effort required.
Low IQ types have a kind of narcissism where they can't even begin to understand how you're supposed to enjoy something you can't directly project your own self on. If a character isn't meant to be an extension of themselves, they get confused and usually lash out at the idea entirely.
However, it should also be noted that good characters are relatable, and it is a sign of a bad character that they're unrelatable. The true low IQ fake midwit response is the one that falsely imagines relatablility to mean a character is "just like me!!" What it actually means is that you can relate to their perspective, because it's deep enough to simulate in a way that, from their starting point, puts you in a similar place. In other words, you can disagree with them and even consider them to be evil for their values, but they can still be a good character if you're able to explain, without malice, the true reasons they're doing why they're doing what they're doing, and including, critically, why they're not doing the thing you yourself would do or want them to do.
You've missed the mark by a mile because the words "relatable" or "relatability" were never used, and on top of that, you're entire assertion is moronic, as relatability isn't the sole defining quality of a good or bad character.
>replying to a bot