Do you role-play in MP games and why or why not?

[Lingchih]

I always role-play to an extent, in diplomacy and such, unless the other player doesn't seem to like it, in which case I will drop it.

I took it to another level in a game I am playing now though. I'm playing Neifelheim, and I figured, hey, these are hugely powerful Giants, who can kill entire armies by themselves. They are not going to meekly ask another nation to "please sign an NAP with us", or whatever. They are going to demand things.

So I started bullying all my neighbors. I told them to stay the hell away from so-and-so province, that my Jarls would go wherever they pleased, that we did not believe in NAPs with tiny beings we could easily crush, etc. Not actually declaring war, but being very rude. I was really role-playing.

Anyway, they all eventually ganged up on me and attacked me. So I think I will just leave it at diplomatic level in the future.

[Ylvali]

In some games I roleplay a lot. I even make strategic decisions based on the pretenders personality. And decide beforehand what his or her goals are. Like conquering a specific capital for some reason etc. I don´t think it is a disadvantage, as it makes me less predictable.

[Tuidjy]

I'm either full on, or full off. Usually my first message will be "Here's
what I suggest, here's my e-mail". But I recently played a game (NeoXekinima)
in which all of my decisions were for role-playing reasons. It was a mod only
game, and I was playing Ulm Reborn - go try it.

I declared war on all the undead/demonic nations on Turn I, promised that I would
not attack any of the 'good' nations, and attacked any neutral nation that showed
any sign of disrespect towards Lady Elena and the tenets of my religion. By
the way Ulm Reborn is a Militant Theocracy.

I attacked my first victim for suggesting that I trade a province in which I had
built a temple, and daring to suggest that his armies were a match for ours.
Then I met one of the evil nations, and before I had even finished them off, one
of my neutral neighbors violated the terms of our treaty by bringing a horde of
demons at our borders. The last neutral action caught a scout of mine while
patrolling and blood hunting. I launched an underwater(!) expedition across the
map, because the 'good' elves were in the way. By that time, the other 'good'
nation decided that I needed killing. The noble knights of Teutanion teleported
their Pretender on top of my border partrols, and the elves sent stealthy hordes
across my borders, but got caught and massacred. Still, I gave the latter
the benefit of doubt... and did not strike back, despite having hundreds (maybe
thousands) of troops stationed at his border.

The whole time, I was posting in character, and even role-played more than one
point of view. Never the Goddess, but I had some inquisitors, and the commanders
of each front. Even my treaties and messages were 100% in character.

I had a great time. No diplomacy to speak of, only coordination of military
plans. No haggling, no backstabbing, and a lot of fun writing pages and pages
of religious propaganda (I had quarterly issues of a religious publication)

Too bad that a patch came in and broke the mods. (After I won, but before
could start the AAR that I had planned on) Only much later I realized that
I could have asked for the backups, and used an old version.

[moderation]

Tuidjy said:
I declared war on all the undead/demonic nations on Turn I, promised that I would
not attack any of the 'good' nations, and attacked any neutral nation that showed
any sign of disrespect towards Lady Elena and the tenets of my religion. By
the way Ulm Reborn is a Militant Theocracy.

Tuidjy: I think what you did is actually really interesting. Now that I think about it, it might almost be necessary to have different objects than being the last pretender standing as you did. If everyone is playing out the same objective, to be the last god standing, the story isn't really that interesting. However you dress it up, the game still revolves around minimaxing and statistics. I've almost reached the conclusion that it's not even worth roleplaying this as a story because it's not really that interesting since whatever you say, you still have to kill everyone else.

However if there's some kind of scenario, a map that is designed specifically with a story in mind, then you have more options to actually get into the story. Particularly with single-player games, you actually get to be the hero of the story. When you're playing a game with 14 other competing heros, you're no longer really that heroic. Of course, I guess there is also the possibility of the big good versus evil scenario where one side is heroic and the other side is villains. But of course in a properly balanced scenarios, the villians would probably have to win about half the time.

[Aezeal]

For example, a player has forgotten to send gems/items they agreed to send (due to doing turns in a hurry), and then refuse to send the items because the player to receive them began attacking said player. If the attacking player chose to wait to receive the items before attacking, while they had been planning to attack for in game reasons, then they would be metagaming. Yet the player who forgot to send the gems/items/money now refuses to send them, because they are now being attacked by the player to receive them. They justify it by saying they won't send gems to their enemy. Yet when the gems should have been sent, the two nations were not openly enemies.

--> I disagree.. even nations could forget to send items/tribute and whatnot to another nation, it could be forgotten, but usually some economic reason would delay the transmission I guess. If the other nation then declared war it's only natural not to repay debts, in fact all merchants from that nation would be locked up and their goods taken..

bad example IMHO

[Omnirizon]

perhaps it is a bad example.

But it is hard to imagine how to fit a player forgetting to send items into the roleplayed illusion. Assuming they genuinely forgot, it can be something like "the latest caravan was held up" or "our royal ambassador is an absent minded dunce who forgot his bags before he left for your capital" or something like that. It fits fairly well into an imaginable event. When a player forgets to do something 2 or 3 turns in a row, it is hard to imagine how it could be fit into the roleplay without the nation just being absolutely incompetent. Can you imagine a present day nation "forgetting" to send something equivalent to magic gems (say plutonium or oil) for 3 months in a row? And it is hard to imagine how such an absolutely incompetent nation could handle tax collection or managing their armies. Yet the tax collection is automatic and players rarely forget to move armies (sending items is actually pretty easy to forget). If something like this is happening, and it is genuine forgetfulness, then it is a complete metagaming influence between the two nations. A nation may have agreed to trade with another, and then three turns after that trade may decide they are going to attack. If one player keeps forgetting to send the trade goods, then the other player's in-game decisions are being influenced by the former's out-game events. If the player who had decided to attack was forced to withhold their attacks due to the still open trade deal (only open because of out-game influence), then the metagaming is having a very powerful effect on in-game events.

If the player isn't forgetting to send the gems, and using that as an excuse, then that is also metagaming. they are using out-game to justify an in-game strategy. A nation would never say they forgot to send something, because it would be completely incompetent. A nation that doesn't have enough wherewithal to ship traded goods to neighbors obviously can't rule their own lands, they would be immediately attacked.

I guess, then, we could just fit the whole occurrence, as you suggested, into some "economic reason". But it is hard to imagine what was economically preventing gems a player has from being put on a caravan or sent with a messenger to another player's capital. And like I said, no nation that can collect its own taxes could simply "forget" to send trade goods or tribute.

The issue is a player taking responsibility for a game they can't play. I guess I have a little feeling around the whole thing because the above scenario has happened to me. If a player is having in-game issues due to inability to actually play their turns, they should do whatever they can to repair their issues affects on other player's in-game strategies.

[Cor2]

Even though I do PNP rpgs like White Wolf or DnD. I often feel like I lack the imagination (or I am too lazy) to Roleplay in Dominions. I need to give it a shot sometime.

[moderation]

Aezeal said:
--> I disagree.. even nations could forget to send items/tribute and whatnot to another nation, it could be forgotten, but usually some economic reason would delay the transmission I guess. If the other nation then declared war it's only natural not to repay debts, in fact all merchants from that nation would be locked up and their goods taken..

I don't really see the point in role-playing these types of scenarios. While it's true that you can created all kinds of imagined "in-game" scenarios for why the gems weren't sent, at the end of the day, the reason that the other play didn't get the gems was that you forgot to click send. To me this is a event that has occurred on the player-level, not the game-level and a player that that believes in good sportsmanship should resolve it at the player level. "Oops, my bad, I'll send the gems this turn." To deliberately not send the gems turn after turn and then make up explanations that involve make-believe merchants is irresponsible. How would you feel if you were the player at the other end of a trade where the other player "forgets" or deliberately does not live up to their end of the bargain and blames imaginary merchants? I find this explanation to be immature and unmeaningful. This is simply breaking an agreement with another player and then finding an imaginary excuse for why you didn't the "send the gems" button" in order to gain a short-term advantage. There's nothing meaningful being role-played here. There is no story being told.

I think of role-playing as similar to improv theater. There is a story or play that multiple players are collaborating to create. Tuidjy offers a much better example of roleplaying here. I think there is a clear and sharp contrast between these two types of roleplaying. In Aezeal's example with the gems, there is no meaningful story, there is only one person cheating another.

Here is a clearer example: Say you are playing TCP/IP game and you forget to set a password for your pretender or you happen to choose a password that someone else has gained access to. Or say he has simply scripted a password cracker and and cracked his way into your account. Now say another player in the game learns of this and logs into your account to learn about your troop positions and strategic weakness and defeat you. While it is possible to create roleplaying reasons for why he has access to all your army movements "Hey, I had some spies in your empire," or "I paid off your advisors to betray you," well all know at the end of the day that he cracked into your account and cheated. Yes, it is possible to roleplay this, but for the purposes of the game, is there a compelling story being told? I think it is pretty clear that for the purposes of Dom 3, there is no compelling story unless you enjoy playing with cheaters.

While this is a strong example, I think it important and useful to illustrate my point. I've encountered a number of examples of bullying and cheating in this game and others where bullying and cheating for personal advantage are disguised as "role-playing" and I can think of plenty of other examples of unsportsman-like conduct that could be dressed up as role-playing. Spotty roleplaying to cover up mistakes only compromises our ability to speak and think clearly about what is going on in the game and obfuscates the issues without contributing in any meaningful way to a shared narrative. I'm starting to think that roleplaying should either be done completely in a crafted scenario, or not at all. Otherwise, there are simply too many ways ambiguous roleplaying can be abused. So here's another question to consider: What is good roleplaying and how do you differentiate it from bad roleplaying?