Actor vs Author

Roleplaying games are funny things.  Two people can both play roleplaying games, and it would seem they share the same hobby.  They gather with friends and use rules to create stories.  But depending on how they look at the game and their role in it they can have vastly different preferences and experiences, and in fact would likely not enjoy each others games very much.  This isn't a bad thing, and doesn't mean that one is playing right and the other wrong.  One area of difference that often goes unspoken is whether they look at themselves as an Actor or an Author.

A vast majority of articles on RPGs have to do with being  GM.  And its a hard, intimidating job that is essential to the hobby.  This one is about players, and how understanding what you want out of a game and how you look at gaming is an important part of that.  It's important for GMs as well, because you want to know your players.  Odds are, you've got a little of both.

Actors enjoy the game through roleplaying another person, often in dangerous or fantastic situations.  Background and history are important to them, as they give them a guideline to who this fictional person is and what decisions they would make.  Internal consistency is vital as well.  If the game world doesn't make sense and have context its harder for them to understand both their character and the larger world they live in.  To an Actor, the primary question they ask when faced with a difficult choice is "What would my character do?"

Authors, on the other hand, don't put as much into their individual character as they do the story that is created.  They need to know about the concepts and genre the game is based on, what kinds of conflicts the GM intends to introduce, and how the other characters relate to them.  Their primary question is 'What would make for a cool story?", regardless of how much sense it makes for the character.  People do nonsensical things all the time, and to an Author creating a fun, memorable story is more important that sticking to a consistent character.

Even the same decision could come about from these different stances.  Let's imagine John the Actor and Dave the Author both have characters in a game.  They have traveled through dangerous lands and fought their way to the Overlord's castle.  The overlord explains that he sent his armies because the ancient laws mandate that he should be king, and the current nobility disregard his claim.   John's character has long kept to the old laws, and followed them to the letter.  He decides to join with the overlord, against his companion's wishes.  To John, he is simply being true to his character.  Dave also decides to side with the Overlord.  His character doesn't care anything for the ancient laws, but he thinks if two of them decide the Overlord is right it would make for a cooler story.  The two of them either have to convince the rest of the party of his claim, agree to back down, or some other conflict.

Understanding yourself, and your players, can reduce the conflict a group sees.  It also reflects what kind of mechanics each player will likely enjoy.  Actors will be more likely to enjoy systems with a solid mechanical grounding, where the rules reflect a fantasy world laws of physics, such as GURPS or D&D 3rd Edition.  Authors tend to favor systems with metagame mechanics such as FATE or Savage Worlds.  Both of these have special points that can be spent to provide plot immunity or introduction of plot twists by players.  Most systems can accommodate both.

So where do you stand?  Actor or Author?

What 4th Edition Does Right

If you've been reading this blog, you might conclude that I'm a drama craving story fiend.  And you'd be right.  You might also conclude that 4th edition D&D is not something I would be too interested in.  That isn't true.  While D&D is more hack and slashy than I tend to prefer, there are some things that I think they did right.  And in the right hands, the rules can give a drama and conflict guy like me some fun tools to play with.

So what do I like so much?  See, I'm not much of a D&D fan these days.  Don't get me wrong, its the granddaddy of them all and the Lingua Franca of the gaming world.  I've just played so much over the years that orcs, elves, and potions of healing are old hat.  If I'm going to do something fantasy, I want to do something different.

I happen to think 4e is a poor choice for a traditional dungeon crawl.  The fights take too long to resolve, so that completing a dungeon would take ages.  However, the fights are also fun, and I like fun.  I prefer not to look at it as a dungeon crawl, multiple fights in a session game, but a system that will provide for a big dramatic fight at the climax.  If you use the DDI tools, whipping up encounters on the fly is easy as cake, which matches my style well.

There's also the dissasociated mechanics, which is a big plus in my book.  All mechanics are disassociated, its just that some games try not to admit it.  Healing surges are a great example, and are nothing more than a way to meter out hit points rather than one big pile of them.  Action points are another.  The game lends itself very well to reskinning.  Classes are all about how your character deals with combat, and its no trouble at all to change the trappings around.

I like the reduced skill list as well.  One thing I didn't care for were all the separate skills in 3.x.  Spot, Listen, AND Notice?  I need three different 'notice shit' scores?  Climb, Jump, Tumbling, and Swim?  The bad part is that 99% of the time if you made a character with one you would take them all, and keep them maxed out as well.  The changes to trained/untrained and smaller list did what all the mucking about with skill points achieved for almost all 3.x characters.

Skill Challenges are an interesting idea.  I use the Obsidian Skill Challenge alternative, which is a little more satisfactory.  They aren't fundamentally different from an extended action in success level systems, though the real innovation is stake setting.  If you do this well, this happens, or if you fail that happens.  The idea of allowing characters to use different skills on the same resolution is interesting as well, and has application in a lot of other games.

The other thing I really like is the famous Page 42.  Some have criticized the game for being too constraining, that if an action isn't a power then it isn't worth doing.  To fix this you need a strong dose of Page 42.  This page in the DMG has a chart of default damage ranges and difficulty numbers to use as a rule of thumb for thinking outside the box.  I use it liberally, and think the next time I run a 4e game I'll print out some extra action cards that say At-Will, Do Something Crazy!  See Page 42!  You want to leg sweep the goblin?  Crash through a window to surprise the guild master?  Throw your cloak over the bad guy's eyes?  We'll figure it out.

However, the game is lacking in personality definition.  This isn't something new, but universal to D&D.  When I make a D&D character, of any edition, I feel like I know very well what this character can do, but nearly no idea of who they are.  I generally use a Dread style questionnaire, each list customized to the character.  But then I've been doing that for every game I run lately that isn't a one-shot.

I'm sure someone will want to debate me in the comments, nothing brings out disagreement like different versions of D&D.  To me, I like that it has a fun tactical game and outside of that is pretty rules light and freeform.  It isn't my one and only and I don't play it that often, but they got enough things right to keep me interested in it.  I'd love a chance to play more often.