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

[Aezeal]

hehe I still have a goal I'm working towards and already am what I wanted to be, and do what I wanted to do.

I think I have one of the best jobs around.. making quite some hours and then some on the side and don't really care

[Omnirizon]

I always roleplay, though it usually just figures into the flavor of my posts and diplomacy.

When forming a theme or personality to roleplay, I usually utilize how I feel the direction of my nation is going in the early game; rather than having a personality in mind from the outset. This is only natural, since culture is formed through historical events/accidents/black swans, whatever. In this way, the roleplay becomes usually intrinsic in my diplomatic and sometimes even military strategy.


EDIT:

I also hate when players metagame. they send communications relevant to game while referencing things outside of the game, or saying things that would be non-sensical given a nations position as an existing entity in the imaginary game world. They act outside the illusion being created for the game to take place within. I think metagaming is also very dangerous for the integrity between game and RL and between two different games; what Sheap discusses in his tips. In this way I suppose everyone should roleplay to the extent that they avoid metagaming. So roleplaying is not only fun, but necessary for the game to function.

[cupido2]

I myself do a bit of roleplaying by picking a thematic pretender, like the Sacred Statue for MA Agartha. And I do the "Hail Lord of"-thing in diplomacy. I think you have to talk and write this way in a game like this.

Put really acting in a role and do the thematically and not the (imho) strategically right move, I only do when I'm on the losing side in a game. But that's nothing in an elaborate way or high art of roleplaying. More something silly to keep myself interested in the game instead of going AI. Like the Godfather in Radiance or the megalomaniac Agartha in Fallacy. Don't know if others thinks that the things I write are entertaining but it does the job for me and I always fought to the last province in the games I was in.

[moderation]

Omnirizon, what do you mean by metagaming?

Things like carrying a grudge from one game to the next of course are really absurd should be avoided at all times. As for out of character communication in a game's discussion thread, I've been wondering why there isn't a more clear distinction between out of character and in character communications. I could actually do a better job of this myself sometimes, but I've found in some games, people don't RP much or don't try to unless someone else does. So it seems like a rather tricky thing. I've been wondering if some sort of roleplaying template would be useful (think of the diplomatic negotiation screen in Civilization, or Master of Orion or Master of Magic, where you're just talking to the computer, but everything is very much in characters). In those situations it's not so much what is being done, but the language that it's couched in that makes an event more convincing. So I think it's mostly a question of language, but maybe it's also a question of attitude.

I'm not sure I could perform the "high art of roleplaying" in Dom 3, to quote cupido02; I often like the idea of role-playing more in the vein of Steve Jackson's goofier games. An off-beat approach referencing pop culture outside of the game can also be fun. For instance, Zoidberg, Pretender God of R'yleh, who tries to heal afflictions, but sometimes also causes them with his pincers. Of course this depends on the setting and wouldn't work so well during a more serious good vs evil type game.

So in general, I think role-playing in Dom 3 can often be complicated, (e.g. is it a good idea to pick a thematic pretender if it will cost you extra design points?) but it also adds some depth without which the game just feels like an exercise in crunching numbers and memorizing spells and strategies. Granted, memorizing spells and strategies can be fun, but I like it more if there's a compelling reason that I am doing it (aside from becoming the number one pretender god). Anyway, I've been mulling over some good vs evil role-playing ideas in this thread, so feel free to throw in some more ideas.

I guess the basic question I'm getting at is more like: "What is fun about role-playing in Dominions? When does it work? When doesn't it work? How can it make the game more fun?" Something like that.

[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.

[Omnirizon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagame

As applied to Dom3, it can also be when out-of-game events start effecting your in game behavior. For example, something out of game leads to a player having certain behavior in game that is non-sensical taken out of the context of the out-game in-game relationship.

For example, due to out of game time constraints, a player is forced to do turns in a hurry. This leads to them forgetting to do something in game, or making a mistake in game. If they are sent a role-played communication asking about their unusual behavior, they may say "I'm sorry, I was doing turns in a hurry and forgot". Turns? whats a turn? You speak in tongues! You see, "turns" don't make any sense in the game world, because we assume our imaginary game-beings don't live their lives "in turns". Additionally, out of game events have shaped, even if in a minor way, in game events. This, I suppose, happens, and the best thing to do is to, dramaturgically, reestablish the game illusion by fitting events into a roleplayed scheme and reestablish normalcy and seperation between in game and out game.

Sometimes, however, players refuse to reestablish the illusion, integrity, separation, and normalcy between in-game out-game because it is in their benefit to do maintain this breach, or is in their benefit to exploit out of game knowledge. This is the most egregious example of metagaming, I believe, in Dom3. This is occurring when nations make strategic decisions based on out of game occurrences. For example say a player plans to turn AI, so his neighbors immediately begin attacking and carving up the territory. It can also happen when out of game occurrences or turned into and justified as in game occurrences. 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. In-game events traceable to out of game occurrences have become relevant to more in-game events and are now justified totally in-game, forgetting the out-game reasons for them. The best thing to do is to reestablish normalcy and integrity be sending the gems, since otherwise out-of-game events are being given a permanent role in the game. Some might say that the first player never intended to send the item/gems, and only said they would, but then if they justify it with out-of-game reasons (oh sorry, I keep forgetting because I do turns in a hurry), then they are metagaming.

You can see now why I HATE metagaming and prefer to avoid players who metagame. It is nothing short of a form of cheating in games. But then, there is modern game theory that says if we ALL cheat, then there really is no cheating, and the game becomes about who can cheat the best. I don't buy into that though. Don't metagame, don't cheat.

[moderation]

Omnirizon: Thanks for you thought provoking post on metagaming. I have to think about this a bit more. It seems like there are two separate, but somewhat related things here, role-playing and playing fair. One the one hand, I think it is possible to play the game fairly without role-playing, in the sense of imagining your pretender god and nation as a character and acting with this in mind.

However you could also argue that playing the game fairly is a type of role-playing too, for instance, not planning to attack someone simply because they are going AI or stale. You also make a good point about modern game theory. After all, in the typical Dom 3 game, I think everyone is doing their utmost to minimax their advantages in order to win, so this is where things get tricky, going back to the point about spending extra design points to create a more thematically correct pretender. Mostly I'm mulling over options for making the game more fun, and preserving some of the story in a game where minimaxing and thematic correctness can be competing goals. The third dimension I suppose is cheating and well, cheating is just plain bad. Anyway, back to mulling.

[Omnirizon]

yes I supppose I got off topic.

roleplaying and metagaming are two different things. now that I think about, you could actually, technically, completely do one without doing the other at all.

However I do think that good roleplaying and good gaming (as opposed to metagaming) go hand in hand. By doing one's best to roleplay, good gaming follows.

also, note that some may not consider metagaming cheating; i'm more orthodox on that though. In some games, metagaming is part and parcel of the accepted strategy. Typically in the more competitive gaming especially.