What is good roleplaying versus bad?

[thumper]

hey all -- I scarfed this topic from MCB -- I didnt like the dead mans walk banter there -- hopefully we can hit some more focused conversation here..

Originally Posted by sloonan

What is good roleplaying versus bad?

My 2 on this goes like this:

As a role player : If your role requires you to brief or seek the confidence of a ref on your stunt (before, during or after) it had gone to far (bad roleplaying). Unfortunately for the roleplayers at large, a high percentage of scenario refs I encounter are poorly prepared for role players - and really should be reffing recball somewhere. If the refs would dig into the rules, read and study into the mechanics of scenario reffing, I think I would feel differently, and the scenario games more interesting.

As a role player : If your stunt does not use a rule (or lack there of) as the reason it could or should work, then it is a decent stunt.

If you can look at your stunt, and feel confidentely that it is in "the spirit of the game" and complies w/ both of the above (doesnt need a ref & doesn't rely on a rule) - then its good role playing.

[ace007]

When I hear the term "role playing" in terms of paintball, I think in terms of the event itself and it's theme. That is to say, does the role fit in to the theme of the event and is it a good one (does it add to the game)?

Your comments seem to be about playing a role in such a way as to take advantage of others players not knowing the rules to a "T", which would also necessitate a ref that knows the rules to a "T" OR splitting hairs on a rule where a player wouldn't technically break a rule, but come dog-gone close. Staying with in the spirit of the game means staying within the spirit of the rules, which you seem to be in favor of. Thumper, you seem to be against splitting hairs when it comes to role playing & rules, so I'm not sure what exactly you want to gain in this area by having refs "dig deeper in to the rules", but we all want refs that know the rules.

The "dead man's" walk is, I guess, the classic thing to fool people with in paintball by making them think you are out when you are not. This is where I like the "barrel condom on rule", but I've been yelled at by people I shot, who were out, but didn't have their barrel condom on. "Tough absent minded dumb buttt" thought I and maybe it hurt bad enough to make them remember the next time. But people are like that--they'll get mad at you when they should be mad at themselves. However, I wouldn't call doing a dead's man walk role playing. It's nothing but a tactic and a risky one at that.


My feelings are that the players who concentrate on "almost breaking a rule" in order to gain an advantage or complete a mission, do this: 1. Take more away from the game than they add most of the time. 2. Come across as doing it for their own glory 3. Sometimes do break the rules when they think no one is looking if that is what it takes. This they never admit...at best it's "an oversite" of some sort.

Part of this would be helped by better, or you might say "fuller' explanations of the game rules. This is an area where I see that big improvements can be made. I'd like to see examples of the allowable & examples of what isn't allowed in the rules of a game. It would help the newer players & improve their enjoyment of the game, cut down on complaints, & serve as a reminder to the experienced players.

I think the "sneaker" players want as little said up front as possible, but if they really have the skills they love to brag about and if they really want competition, a more prepared opposition is what they should want. You hear or see in print where someone is claiming to have shot out 10-20 people rather quickly. This rarely happens because someone is a great player in the sense that they are a better shot, better runner, better at diving for cover, etc.. It usually happens because they caught someone off-guard legally or otherwise, unless the victims were newbies and those fall in to their own little category. I'm kinda including "acts of stupidity" in with that, such as walking out in to a wide open area with no cover. But it's the catching people off-guard thru "grey-area" tactics that get people really fire hot mad. Simply saying, "well you play and learn" doesn't really cut it. Everybody pays their money and, IMO, everybody deserves as equal chance as possible to get the same amount of enjoyment in return. You can only get to that point by not only telling people what the rules are, but by pointing out things that could happen within the rules which might not be readily apparent. I'm not talking about going thru some sort of exhaustive list of possibities, but rather giving people a list of sneaky stuff that might be attempted, within the rules, which is representitive of the whole grab-bag of actual stunts that might get pulled.

So what I'm saying is this, if as stunt / role playing is going to happen in a game, then let's not let it work because it got pulled on some newbies or because it was thought that the rules prevented it. And think about this--if a ref is going to need to "dig deeper in to the rules" to be prepared for the stunt, what's the odds that the opposition is gonna have a clue (unless it's covered in the rules explanation)? Is that what we really are, people who want to go back to camp & laugh at how well a stunt worked because the victims didn't have a clue that such a stunt was allowed by the rules? That's not me & I hope the majority agrees too.

[thumper]

Thumper, you seem to be against splitting hairs when it comes to role playing & rules, so I'm not sure what exactly you want to gain in this area by having refs "dig deeper in to the rules", but we all want refs that know the rules.

Picture this: a guy from the other team walks up and says he has a nuclear device in his pants that can neutralize and sterilize the planet. He would like to discuss trading his secrets with your XO. You fear for your life, and allow him to pass. later he trades some useless information for some gold bricks - or maybe whips out his satchel charge and blows the command base.

No rules broken, clearly a pretty obvious effort, and not likely to work - but certainly plausible in that Ive know similar stunts to work over and over again.

needs a ref: no
relies on a rule to work: no
in the spirit of the game: sure, just add the right accents. (German Nuclear Device etc.)

clean play in my book.

Deceives the enemy player: sure. "You can lie, you just cant cheat" - Ben T.

------

I remember once when Steers tried to BS his way through enemy lines with the infamous "I have diplomatic immunity" gag -- It was working until a ref got involved and blew his story announcing to the enemy that there was no diplomatic immunity in pball as he had to call it in to find out himself. Any veteran scenario ref would know there is no such thing, would would have let the stunt continue without interferance. (or pleed ignorance if asked)

-------

The variations on these themes are endless as they are entertaining to those who know how to play the roles and pull them off. I say good fun just so long at they are in the spirit of the game, dont need a ref or a rule to work.

[ace007]

Originally Posted by thumper

Thumper, you seem to be against splitting hairs when it comes to role playing & rules, so I'm not sure what exactly you want to gain in this area by having refs "dig deeper in to the rules", but we all want refs that know the rules.

Picture this: a guy from the other team walks up and says he has a nuclear device in his pants that can neutralize and sterilize the planet. He would like to discuss trading his secrets with your XO. You fear for your life, and allow him to pass. later he trades some useless information for some gold bricks - or maybe whips out his satchel charge and blows the command base.

No rules broken, clearly a pretty obvious effort, and not likely to work - but certainly plausible in that Ive know similar stunts to work over and over again.

needs a ref: no
relies on a rule to work: no
in the spirit of the game: sure, just add the right accents. (German Nuclear Device etc.)

clean play in my book.

Deceives the enemy player: sure. "You can lie, you just cant cheat" - Ben T.

------

I remember once when Steers tried to BS his way through enemy lines with the infamous "I have diplomatic immunity" gag -- It was working until a ref got involved and blew his story announcing to the enemy that there was no diplomatic immunity in pball as he had to call it in to find out himself. Any veteran scenario ref would know there is no such thing, would would have let the stunt continue without interferance. (or pleed ignorance if asked)

-------

The variations on these themes are endless as they are entertaining to those who know how to play the roles and pull them off. I say good fun just so long at they are in the spirit of the game, dont need a ref or a rule to work.

It would be in good fun if people are aware that such things are possible. It's not any fun to take a knife to a fight only to find out you could have brought a gun.

However, I disagree a little on the ref--IMO, players should be able to get clarification from a ref, if they are smart enough to ask the question. I agree that the situation you discribed, a ref shouldn't volunteer information, but they should have & give it out when asked.

Situation I've run in to:

You are defending a "beach" & you are going to be attacked by an ampibious attack, which will turn in to a ground attack, after they land.

Beach, water, ampibious vechicles, and landing are all pretend. Everything is decided by land markers as to what is water, what is land, where can the enemy disperse individually as if they are on land. So I ask the ref what is what. He doesn't know jack or he was playing dumb. There are no markers and explantion of all of this prior to the game is impossible--the only way is to explain is while actually on the field, hopefully with markers (but there wasn't any). For example, attacking team could be told, "once you progress as a group to the red flags, you are now on land & can run as individuals." But at this battle, there wasn't any red flags. It was no different than if we had all been told, "this group will start on the left, this group will dig in on the right, then well blow a whistle & go at it". This took away from the game and it was the same for everybody at that battle.

[Steers]

1. Not all refs are as knowledgable as the others. Some are new some are veterens. Because of this it is necessary (depending on the star-level of the stunt) to clear anything with a ref previously. And as stated in previous threads...make sure it is clarified with no radio usage.

2. Especially for MPP Games, scenario paintball is to an extent, a simulation of combat. Ben T. has made it known so many times that almost everyone knows, that he wants us to think creatively and as thumper said, "You can lie, but you can't cheat" -Ben T. If you are clever, stealthy, agile....you name it......if you can pull it off, then do your best to do so. At each scenario, everyone always learns something about their opponents. Steve Chase is on of 5 guys that I simply shiver when I hear his name. Every scenario, he learns how our side plays and moves to better himself and his minions in order to counter our tactics. -That is sportsmanship and maturity at large. Team Moles, Sewer Rats, and Omniforce, also adapt, learn, and listen. Every game they play differently are present a very strong challenge that their opponents have to overcome.

Paintball is the greatest sport, because you are always learning. No one can boast and say that they no everything. We better eachother by playing with and against eachother. Example: At luzon, I barrel tagged Omnicool out, but now at every game I know that he will shoot first and ask questions later. There should never be any complaining or bad feelings over any stunt, because if there was no cheating going on, they that person outsmarted their opponent. It's the opponent's job to learn from their mistake.....to let the russion by with the bomb.

[thumper]

Originally Posted by ace007

.. players should be able to get clarification from a ref, if they are smart enough to ask the question...

agreed -- and refs should be able to judge what level of information to release, but its a 50/50 crap shoot at best at :

1) expecting a ref to keep a stunt relatively intact once they know of its intentions and techniques.
(this is why Im opting out of involving refs in stunts - period - STEERS!!!!)


2) asking a ref a reasonable question about the producer intentions about the situation you described (et al.) above and expecting reasonable clarifications.

as for guns in knife fights : there are a number of clever teams out there that do enjoy and play "the whole game". No one documents the stunts , cause they just might work again...

[Steers]

Originally Posted by thumper

agreed -- and refs should be able to judge what level of information to release, but its a 50/50 crap shoot at best at :

1) expecting a ref to keep a stunt relatively intact once they know of its intentions and techniques.
(this is why Im opting out of involving refs in stunts - period - STEERS!!!!)


2) asking a ref a reasonable question about the producer intentions about the situation you described (et al.) above and expecting reasonable clarifications.

as for guns in knife fights : there are a number of clever teams out there that do enjoy and play "the whole game". No one documents the stunts , cause they just might work again...

LOL, yeah, I typed my last post in a hurry. A few steps further down the ladder of discussion brings my post to the topic at hand. It is nearly impossible to keep the plan intact and secret once spoken.

I personally do agree with "opting out of involving refs in stunts" in scenario games

[Volcano]

why shouldn't Refs at least anwer your questions if a device/role is allowed?
This is especially important for the "scenerio virgins" that come...and don't we want them back?

[Volcano]

Originally Posted by thumper

No one documents the stunts , cause they just might work again...

I think that you are on to something

[thumper]

Originally Posted by Volcano

why shouldn't Refs at least anwer your questions if a device/role is allowed?

they should, shouldnt they.

problem #1) half the time the refs themselves dont know.
#2) the refs end up blowing the stunt.

We started a pretty healthy scenario ref training guide on this site that would benefit all scenario refs. I dont think there is another like it available.

Paintball Safety - PBjunkie.com