Recently, I have dropped watching all of RollPlay shows. I no longer cared what happened regardless of who was GMing, the cast, the setting, or the system. I still watch all of Koibu's roleplay shows that run Dungeons and Dragons 2nd Edition, so I chucked it up to my preference for that system. However, while watching a recent episode of Office Hours, I came to the revelation why RollPlay shows are nowhere on the level they used to be.
In the beginning of the episode, Adam "skinnyghost" Koebel talks about how there is no character in roleplaying games, no immersion, there is only the actions you as a player make to further your progression in the game by means of its game mechanics. This philosophy completely removes the first part of the term roleplaying games, to just games. To play a role is to act in such a way that the character you are portraying would. This why you can tell when actors phones in a role for a movie and when a really great actor immerses themselves in that character. That is why method acting is a thing.
No one is expecting a lowly Dungeons and Dragons player to become a method actor, but immersion plays a big part for the player and in today's age, the audience. Every so often, players of the RollPlay shows are asked "What is your favourite Roll memory or moment?" More often than not, it is something that happened from the original RollPlay show when Neal "Koibu" Erickson was the DM. That alone says that the actions and characters played back then were more meaningful.
Koibu runs a much stricter game style, where players are encouraged to play their characters how they would act in a situation. It is no longer watching the player make rolls, but the player making roles. The phenomenon of the growing interest in people watching roleplay shows is not about the game. It is partly about the cast, but mostly it is about the characters and the stories they tell. Just as television has become an amazing place for great storytelling, people look to these roleplay shows for unique storytelling. It is difficult to get into a roleplay show when the characters don't feel real, nor do the worlds.
With the new crop of GMs for RollPlay, they have focused less on relative realism in game to foster immersion, and more on systems that make it nigh impossible for a player character to die, removing the stakes of the game, which in turn removes tension and drama. All the key marks of great storytelling. These same GMs deride DMs as if they are failed novelist looking to tell an epic tale in their Dungeons and Dragons campaign, when they themselves know very little of how storytelling and characters are compelling.
What used to be memorable characters, events, and stories has devolved into lifeless worlds, forgettable characters, and nothing compelling to keep audience members like me interested any longer.
1."which in turn removes tension and drama" Do you watch/read a lot of "drama" ? In many storytelling pieces (theater/books/movies you name it), drama is about the suffering of a character. So "All the key marks of great storytelling" ? Not much, nearly not at all. The death is sometimes the conclusion. I think you mistake Character drama and Player drama.
ReplyDelete2.You make the apology of character death, and it's alright. It's fun in D&D. "These same GMs deride DMs as if they are failed novelist looking to tell an epic tale in their Dungeons and Dragons campaign" AS IF D&D was a reference in the matter ! I love D&D man, but don't point it like a Bible of storytelling. Nothing in this game has a mechanical support about storytelling. And to add to the "failed novelist" part, when you kill a character you throw away all the creative process that did not have time flourish, it's a failure. When you keep a character despite his flaws, try to make the most out of it and pursue the drama, it's an artistic sucess of determination.
3."It is difficult to get into a roleplay show when the characters don't feel real, nor do the worlds." I think you forgot "nor do the worlds that aren't D&D". You seem to be really pationnate about D&D, and it might blind your judgement about the others great roleplaying games you discredit, that push towards character developpement rather than character death.
4.I think All of this, is about one question. What is the best way to make a story with the randomness of roleplaying game ? An ephemeral one, or a long lasting one ? Do the audience appreciate death over development ?
I might got a bit sarcastic, but I think the best way to get a point on this question, was not the way you did it.
Because in the end, you just did present your point without opening a discussion around it.
It almost seems you want to hurt someone feelings with this vocabulary. (dropped, no longer cared, nowhere on the level, no immersion) (oh and "failed novelist" that one was a harsh one) You can present your point of view without being so hurtfull.
I don't know where all this poison comes from.
But we can feel a lot of frustration. And maybe that's how you indirectly insulted all roleplayin game designer.
Be pleased
1. In situations where death is on the line, the removal of the threat of death in systems that make it almost impossible for the character to die removes the tension from the scene. The purpose of swinging a sword is usually to kill the enemy. If you have two people in a sword fight, but as an audience member you know one can't die, there is no tension, no drama.
ReplyDelete2. The "failed novelist" part is actually quoting Adam Koebel on how he describes any GM who wants to tell a compelling story. That's all his words, not mine. This is more about roleplaying as a show than any system facilitating storytelling. It's why I said that I was no longer invested in any of the RollPlay shows regardless of system.
The second part, I agree with you up until a point. Character development matters when the GM is encouraging roleplaying by the characters, which as stated in the video is almost a moot point in Adam's games. Otherwise you're watching players roll dice.
3. Through RollPlay, I have been exposed to a multitude of systems, and no system is perfect, D&D included. No system is perfect for a GM's needs. D&D isn't even the one I grew up on. There was a Burning Wheel show where a player got imprisoned. There was no threat the character would die. It is a dissonance of what we as viewers expect to happen logically in a relatively realistic setting, and what ends up happening. Whether you're poking a dragon, or poking a marine in power armor, removing logical consequences through game mechanics leads to loss of immersion.
4. I think the random element is what sets roleplaying shows apart from traditional media. When anything can happen, it's exciting. I don't mean to make it sound like all I want is death spread around. In fact, D&D 2e's critical hit table allows for results that don't require immediate death. It shouldn't be shied away that combat is dangerous. I think the examples of punishing a character in various ways is more for situations outside of combat.
You are right; people have different tastes. Some like procedural TV shows where no one really dies, and others like gritty realism like Game of Thrones. Anyone could say Game of Thrones is a better show than CSI.
I am frustrated. I watched RollPlay shows since near the beginning. I DID care those shows, and is why I'm sad of the transition to GMs who prefer systems like Burning Wheel and Blades in the Dark, away from a GM style that creates immersion. When Tudagub died, it affected the players and the audience. The death of a character is more about how the people around are affected by that death, rather than the death itself. The snuffing out of so much potential is a tragedy in and of itself. That kind of investment is only possible when the characters and world are immersive for the audience. You see it when certain people on The Walking Dead die. There are many other memorable moments besides character death that has had a bigger impact than what is on now. In the end I had felt the shows were not as good as they used to be.
My biggest problem is the lack of immersion because of their GM style of having little regard for roleplaying. That immersion is what helps to foster audience investment.
The post was merely a realization for me that GMs ultimately have most of the control over the tone, rules, and systems, and the players follow the GM's lead. Once you know the philosophy of the GMs, you realize why it doesn't always facilitate good or compelling storytelling. Two GMs can run the same game with different results, not because of rolls, but because one can care about roleplaying and the other doesn't. The latter is just watching players roll dice.
No one else HAS to stop watching, but those are my reasons. To each their own.