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

[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.

[Aezeal]

Omnirizon: the king/emperor/pretender didn't want to put signatures on royal decree's this month so he went hunting... all administration had to wait a month

or just the age old excuse: burocracy (?)

I don't consider that a real meta game problem really.. it's what you should expect, or keep in mind at least.

[Omnirizon]

I like it, I like it. The king forgets to sign. His empire his crumbling under corruption as his court picks everything apart out from under him, embezalling(sp?) royal trade goods, filling their own pockets before fleeing to other lands. leaving the peasantry to suffer the burden of an incompetent, irresponsible king.

[Agrajag]

Bureaucracy, Embezzling.
Firefox now comes with a pretty awesome dictionary that automatically checks everything you type in a textbox type field

[Omnirizon]

Agrajag said:
Bureaucracy, Embezzling.
Firefox now comes with a pretty awesome dictionary that automatically checks everything you type in a textbox type field

the logic of the autocorrect on firefox isn't that keen. for the misspelling I had it kept returning "embellishing", with no option in the list of the correct spelling for "embezzling." I tried a couple different words, even using the double "z". The issue, I think, is I had the vowel following the z's, and firefox was getting thrown off by that.

I hate to say it, but the microsoft autocorrect is far superior.

[Dedas]

Why can't there be incompetent or just plain dumb rulers?

Good and effective administration might not be present in slothful or turmoil dominion.

When I'm playing a more or less "good" ruler I can find that it serves my purposes (and is thematically right) to just plain stall any deal. Sometimes even seizing the whole shipment without payment from the naive ruler I'm trading with. Perhaps that's what you get for trading with a diabolic demon lord whose rule is based on just corruption and lies.

I will of course face the consequences of that kind action, but it won't be so bad when I'm am mightier than they.

Other times I play a virtuous and humanitarian prince who only think good of everyone and cannot lie or deceive.

[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?