[Sawrock]

I've wanted to make a thread about some thoughts I've had about roleplaying for a while. This is more of my own rambling than anything else- not necessarily what is innately best.

In roleplaying, there's a line. At one side, we have actions and mechanics that encourage and suit immersive roleplaying, while on the other side of the line there's instead such that encourages a more storytelling-styled approach.

Some people prefer things to be more on the immersive side. I would call these styles of roleplayers "actors", as they trend towards an improv-acting style of roleplaying. They want their experiences to be given to them, and to react in the heat of the moment without being overly concerned about the bigger picture. This would usually be encouraged by more mechanics being resolved outside of the player's control, such as a game engine (whether digital or otherwise). An example would be if you lose a fight, your character is set to be knocked out, and there are mechanics that the aggressor can take that are built into the system. Or, drawing from Sigrogana Legend 1, the ability to stealth, wiretap, and otherwise spy on other players without their knowing, but also mechanics that can be used to counter such. The benefits of this style is that due to less work being done by the player, they aren't as distracted and are more able to immerse themselves/get lost in their roleplay. The downsides are that it usually requires more work from an outside source, whether it be Dev coding the game or a gamemaster (and players) having expertly mastered their tabletop system of choice (as well as having found a system that works in the first place). In addition, where the system doesn't cover often leads blindspots that need to be patched up awkwardly.

Some people instead prefer to be on the storytelling side. These roleplayers I'd instead dub "writers". They want to write and experience a good story- they do not want to leave things up to chance. If their characters don't go along the path they expected or planned out for them, it's likely they will not find the roleplay engaging. However, when they are able to plan and cooperate with their fellow roleplayers they are able to construct much more engaging experiences (as, afterall, they can be much more practiced in that regard). Some mechanics that follow this path would be allowing players to set/create scenery as they wish (as opposed to having crafted it beforehand), and having all interactions be clearly stated and expressed for those participating to view and understand. However, leaving things up to how people think what a good story makes or working without an outside mediator/ruleset can be detrimental- those who have more out-of-game will, stubbornness, or social charisma will oftentimes be more the winners in clashes, and what one person thinks is a good story can be the opposite for what another thinks makes a good story- I've seen, for example, when someone working as a guard would say "I don't want that to happen, it will make my role seem inefficient". They are playing the guard who is dutifully attending to their job, while I was playing a miscreant who would rather like to escape and commit more crimes- if my murderer is finished too early, it might be a good story for the guard for a job well done, but my criminal can't go on his spree if he's stomped immediately.

Sigrogana is a good blend of the two styles. We rely on the consent of our fellow roleplayers, which is good for a healthy environment, yet with an environment where we need to meet up with people by chance and things can happen unexpectedly from the sheer web of people we can interact with. This is a boon over forum roleplay, which due to the play-by-post nature and longer responses, are severely limited in their immersion (it's more akin to writing a story, with thoughts expressed clearly, moments mulled over for all to see). And unlike other roleplay games that are suited to more immersion (such as old Dragon Ball Z roleplay games, myself having played Finale and Phoenix) where time is tracked month by month and year by year, you need to keep up with your training, there is an afterlife system, etcetera... we do not need to dedicate the sheer amount of time that is needed for those systems. If things are too immersive, then they instead can interfere with real life, and in ghastly situations even put people in scenarios they would absolutely not give consent to.

In the end, I prefer more immersive roleplay. With the aforementioned example of the guard attempting to apprehend me, the criminal, I would prefer if both of our ideas of a story were taken into consideration and resolved by an external system, as if we both play a game (such as player combat) and see who wins, we can resolve the situation without having to flat-out concede what story we want to tell. And if I do lose- hey, they hurt me more than I hurt them, that's just the way it goes, and the roleplay can continue with my mindset set. With that being said, I absolutely see benefits to having a mix of both styles. Leaning too far into one or the other can be detrimental, so knowing what sort of situations should favor which approach and have the appropriate resolution to implement is key to satisfying roleplay.