do people think "rollplaying" and "roleplaying" are mutually exclusive?


Gamer Life General Discussion

1 to 50 of 272 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've seen people say the infamous phrase "I'm a roleplayer, not a rollplayer!", but what strikes me from that statement is the assertion that one cannot be both.

Is that really what people think?

For example, I myself am both. I love making a character concept and background and then properly playing that character, but I also love taking a character concept and making the most out of that character build that I can.

It just kinda seems off to me when a player will focus on one aspect and bash the other aspect, as it seems to be that they are both part of this game and both things that I draw enjoyment from. How do you wonderful people of the forums feel about this?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it's an absurd idea, but there are definitely people who feel that way.

The Exchange

4 people marked this as a favorite.

To answer the question....no. People don't think they are mutually exclusive. Here is the caveat though. People who look at the game and tend to be into number crunching and trying to "win" aren't usually putting the roleplaying in a high priority. There are always exceptions to the rules and there are shade of grade all along the scale also. It isn't an either or proposition, it is that everyone has a sliding scale for numbers and a separate scale for roleplay and unfortunately enough people slide up the numbers scale and don't focus on the other and vice versa that it makes some absolutists decide it is an either or state.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Difficult. Not impossible, but difficult. Character optimization can lead to some difficult-to-justify roleplay things. Why an oracle spontaneously decides to become a paladin for 2 levels or a wizard is making snow fire genies aren't self-explanitory to roleplay. And paladin self-healy tank-types all being found in the wild as children. Conversely, building a character entirely on flavor will net you more bad options than good ones- While an intelligent, charming, pacifist philosopher monk or a healing-based cleric are both laudable goals, both also poorly optimized and could hurt your party. So it's possible to be both, but it's not common to do that.


15 people marked this as a favorite.
Fake Healer wrote:

People who look at the game and tend to be into number crunching and trying to "win" aren't usually putting the roleplaying in a high priority.

In my experience, people who don't care about the number crunching don't care enough about the game to put any effort into their roleplaying, either.


It is possible to focus so much on rollplaying that roleplaying suffers. I find that you usually have chose with which one you lead.
Personally in 3.5 their have been times I chose to not play a loving concept (monk) because the numbers weren't high and it didnt do what i excpected it to do in the game.
Others times I didn't play it because their was a better option (sorcerer).
I try to do the first and avoid the second.

Sum of it is, that there is a point where you are rollplaying to the expense or roleplaying and the opposite.
I find its easy and relatively common to create a character with a focus only on what it will achieve in the game or how strong it is, then try to roleplay whatever you end up with. Sometimes this causes your (role)play to lack depth.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

14 people marked this as a favorite.

Typically, the sentiment comes from people who quickly demonstrate that they don't actually know what "roleplaying" means. A lot of people think it means "talking to NPCs in first-person", and therefore conclude that someone who is doing something other than that must not be roleplaying. A lot of people think "roleplaying" means "the part of the game without the dice", and therefore conclude that someone who is talking about the dice-using part of the game must not be interested in (what they call) "roleplaying".

In any conversation in which the participants know what roleplaying is, the whole "roleplay vs rollplay" thing simply doesn't exist.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Serghar Cromwell wrote:
Fake Healer wrote:

People who look at the game and tend to be into number crunching and trying to "win" aren't usually putting the roleplaying in a high priority.

In my experience, people who don't care about the number crunching don't care enough about the game to put any effort into their roleplaying, either.

I was going to say this, but I guess the discussion was over before I got here.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Serghar Cromwell wrote:
Fake Healer wrote:

People who look at the game and tend to be into number crunching and trying to "win" aren't usually putting the roleplaying in a high priority.

In my experience, people who don't care about the number crunching don't care enough about the game to put any effort into their roleplaying, either.
I was going to say this, but I guess the discussion was over before I got here.

What's the point of building an awesome character if you're not going to write an equally awesome story to tie all your choices together, am I right?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Serghar Cromwell wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Serghar Cromwell wrote:
Fake Healer wrote:

People who look at the game and tend to be into number crunching and trying to "win" aren't usually putting the roleplaying in a high priority.

In my experience, people who don't care about the number crunching don't care enough about the game to put any effort into their roleplaying, either.
I was going to say this, but I guess the discussion was over before I got here.
What's the point of building an awesome character if you're not going to write an equally awesome story to tie all your choices together, am I right?

Exactly. Who cares about Jill the fighter when they can hear about Jill of Westcrown, who set out from home after her family fell in decline during and after the civil wars? With dreams of riches and glory in her head as she sells her sword arm for the profit that will buy her a hero's welcome back home?

Granted, you also don't want to drive out folks making them think that the requirements to roll up a character include a five novel series about their childhood. Some folks do need to start with 'Jill the fighter wants to get rich and famous doing stuff' and go on from there.


Qaianna wrote:
Serghar Cromwell wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Serghar Cromwell wrote:
Fake Healer wrote:

People who look at the game and tend to be into number crunching and trying to "win" aren't usually putting the roleplaying in a high priority.

In my experience, people who don't care about the number crunching don't care enough about the game to put any effort into their roleplaying, either.
I was going to say this, but I guess the discussion was over before I got here.
What's the point of building an awesome character if you're not going to write an equally awesome story to tie all your choices together, am I right?

Exactly. Who cares about Jill the fighter when they can hear about Jill of Westcrown, who set out from home after her family fell in decline during and after the civil wars? With dreams of riches and glory in her head as she sells her sword arm for the profit that will buy her a hero's welcome back home?

Granted, you also don't want to drive out folks making them think that the requirements to roll up a character include a five novel series about their childhood. Some folks do need to start with 'Jill the fighter wants to get rich and famous doing stuff' and go on from there.

I personally aim for two paragraphs that give a good summary, but leave room for if the GM/Other Players have any ideas/want to tie in some hooks/etc. I blame FATE for that though. Heck, even my purely for PvP characters have backstory.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For me, I'm a person who looks at the character, what I want them to do, and what the numbers are, and what they are.

I hate rolling up a character who is like "I'm a totally awesome trickster, capable of escaping situations, and more. " and then the character ends up just playing like superman 64.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Qaianna wrote:

Granted, you also don't want to drive out folks making them think that the requirements to roll up a character include a five novel series about their childhood. Some folks do need to start with 'Jill the fighter wants to get rich and famous doing stuff' and go on from there.

Very true. My whole group is pretty obsessed with world building, so our table might seem inaccessible if we tried to take on a new player.

The converse of my statement also seems worth considering: Where's the fun in writing an awesome story for a character if the character you build can't live up to it? Unless that's the point of the character, of course.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Serghar Cromwell wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Serghar Cromwell wrote:
Fake Healer wrote:

People who look at the game and tend to be into number crunching and trying to "win" aren't usually putting the roleplaying in a high priority.

In my experience, people who don't care about the number crunching don't care enough about the game to put any effort into their roleplaying, either.
I was going to say this, but I guess the discussion was over before I got here.
What's the point of building an awesome character if you're not going to write an equally awesome story to tie all your choices together, am I right?

What does "writing an awesome story" have to do with roleplaying?

What's the point of building an awesome character, if you're not going to bring the character to life at the table? If the character isn't going to face hard choices, triumphs and despair?

Roleplaying happens in the game, not the backstory.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Serghar Cromwell wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Serghar Cromwell wrote:
Fake Healer wrote:

People who look at the game and tend to be into number crunching and trying to "win" aren't usually putting the roleplaying in a high priority.

In my experience, people who don't care about the number crunching don't care enough about the game to put any effort into their roleplaying, either.
I was going to say this, but I guess the discussion was over before I got here.
What's the point of building an awesome character if you're not going to write an equally awesome story to tie all your choices together, am I right?

What does "writing an awesome story" have to do with roleplaying?

What's the point of building an awesome character, if you're not going to bring the character to life at the table? If the character isn't going to face hard choices, triumphs and despair?

Roleplaying happens in the game, not the backstory.

To know where you are going, first you must know where you have been.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Or to perhaps put it another way: the backstory is itself not roleplay, but is a helpful aid to roleplaying.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Serghar Cromwell wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Serghar Cromwell wrote:
Fake Healer wrote:

People who look at the game and tend to be into number crunching and trying to "win" aren't usually putting the roleplaying in a high priority.

In my experience, people who don't care about the number crunching don't care enough about the game to put any effort into their roleplaying, either.
I was going to say this, but I guess the discussion was over before I got here.
What's the point of building an awesome character if you're not going to write an equally awesome story to tie all your choices together, am I right?

What does "writing an awesome story" have to do with roleplaying?

What's the point of building an awesome character, if you're not going to bring the character to life at the table? If the character isn't going to face hard choices, triumphs and despair?

Roleplaying happens in the game, not the backstory.

It's a lot easier to bring a character to life at the table if you have some idea who they're supposed to be when you start playing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Serghar Cromwell wrote:
Fake Healer wrote:

People who look at the game and tend to be into number crunching and trying to "win" aren't usually putting the roleplaying in a high priority.

In my experience, people who don't care about the number crunching don't care enough about the game to put any effort into their roleplaying, either.

I've met people who were really only interested in the character building and seemed to view the actual game only as a necessary evil to reach the next level. And many others who could really bring characters to life, but weren't interested in the system mastery aspect at all - they tended to like less crunch-heavy systems than Pathfinder though.

And every where in between, including those heavy into both and or neither.

I'd agree, they're not necessarily in competition, but they don't always come together either.


Serghar Cromwell wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Serghar Cromwell wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Serghar Cromwell wrote:
Fake Healer wrote:

People who look at the game and tend to be into number crunching and trying to "win" aren't usually putting the roleplaying in a high priority.

In my experience, people who don't care about the number crunching don't care enough about the game to put any effort into their roleplaying, either.
I was going to say this, but I guess the discussion was over before I got here.
What's the point of building an awesome character if you're not going to write an equally awesome story to tie all your choices together, am I right?

What does "writing an awesome story" have to do with roleplaying?

What's the point of building an awesome character, if you're not going to bring the character to life at the table? If the character isn't going to face hard choices, triumphs and despair?

Roleplaying happens in the game, not the backstory.

It's a lot easier to bring a character to life at the table if you have some idea who they're supposed to be when you start playing.

For some. For me, the personality comes out in the game. Trying to force too much before it has a chance to develop makes it artificial. Either the way the character turns out won't match the backstory, or I'll force it too and the character will never really develop.


thejeff wrote:
Serghar Cromwell wrote:
Fake Healer wrote:

People who look at the game and tend to be into number crunching and trying to "win" aren't usually putting the roleplaying in a high priority.

In my experience, people who don't care about the number crunching don't care enough about the game to put any effort into their roleplaying, either.

I've met people who were really only interested in the character building and seemed to view the actual game only as a necessary evil to reach the next level. And many others who could really bring characters to life, but weren't interested in the system mastery aspect at all - they tended to like less crunch-heavy systems than Pathfinder though.

And every where in between, including those heavy into both and or neither.

I'd agree, they're not necessarily in competition, but they don't always come together either.

Indeed. Claiming that they did would be just as absurd as saying they couldn't.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think I agree with most posters in that roll playing and role playing are independent.

Some game systems encourage role playing more than others. I find role playing comes more naturally to me in 5th edition than it does in Pathfinder.


thejeff wrote:
For some. For me, the personality comes out in the game. Trying to force too much before it has a chance to develop makes it artificial. Either the way the character turns out won't match the backstory, or I'll force it too and the character will never really develop.

PMed you a response to avoid derailing.


I think rollplaying can lead to some good roleplaying. The things all my characters became known for in-game were how much they excelled at certain tasks, and became hallmarks of their character. My approach to role playing has always been to 1) Make an effective, fun to play character, whether thru combat, skills, spells, etc... (No one wants to feel useless) and then 2) Make up a character as you play. Have a rough outline of what they are and fill in the gaps with what you actually do in game. It makes you fit into the world and party better.

I honestly feel like both types of play are needed for an optimally fun experience for everyone involved. Everyone feeling like a powerful group of adventurers bound together by fate. Or something. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Jiggy wrote: In any conversation in which the participants know what roleplaying is, the whole "roleplay vs rollplay" thing simply doesn't exist.

I've found this to be almost completely true in my home game. Of course, Jiggy didn't elaborate, so I'm interpreting the comment my way. :)

Let's say players write background and goals well-integrated with the campaign setting, and the GM (me) creates (or modifies) plentiful encounters so that the encounters have meaning in terms of the character's story arcs. You could then have a 12-hour game session of non-stop combat, and the entire time it's role-playing, because the fights are all meaningful to who the characters are. Just sayin'

I GM a regular home game mostly using modified APs. Currently running Wrath of the Righteous. One character has 7 pages (!) of backstory for his tiefling Inquisitor. Not everyone's cup of joe, but I feel privileged that I get to enjoy the efforts of this player. Oh, he's also a really well built Inquisitor - very effective during fights. ;)

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Some people just want to feel superior.

Making the claim that these two are separate, allows them to be on the "superior" side.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Serghar Cromwell wrote:
Fake Healer wrote:

People who look at the game and tend to be into number crunching and trying to "win" aren't usually putting the roleplaying in a high priority.

In my experience, people who don't care about the number crunching don't care enough about the game to put any effort into their roleplaying, either.

I too have had the experience described by Cromwell.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Are they exclusive? No, not necessarily. But when someone is making thinly veiled excuses for building power builds, he fuels the belief that they are.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ms. Pleiades wrote:
Serghar Cromwell wrote:
Fake Healer wrote:

People who look at the game and tend to be into number crunching and trying to "win" aren't usually putting the roleplaying in a high priority.

In my experience, people who don't care about the number crunching don't care enough about the game to put any effort into their roleplaying, either.
I too have had the experience described by Cromwell.

Add me to the list as well.

The only exception I have seen is a player who has a pathological hatred for anything that vaguely resembles schoolwork (they didn't exactly have a great high school educational experience). The player is happy to sit down with someone and let the other person figure out how to make a mechanically powerful character that aligns with their concept, and they really appreciate it when they get to do cool things or pull out surprises to defeat encounters in hilarious ways because they are playing a well optimized PC. They just can't stand digging through the rules themselves to make it happen. Other than that, a decent grasp of mechanical optimization and good roleplaying tend to go hand in hand in my experience.


no


Well i agree that you should the most of what you got when it comes down to roleplaying your rollplaying and thus they are connected.

Still considering i almost everytime will make my PCs pretty much maximize atleast one performance (including feats,skill,items,good CHAR...) and that i dont often play bard/skald , i can say that often i find myself knowing fully well how what im picking is completely useless , but i still want anyway cause i think it is cool to roleplay it.


Nox Aeterna wrote:
Still considering i almost everytime will make my PCs pretty much maximize atleast one performance (including feats,skill,items,good CHAR...) and that i dont often play bard/skald , i can say that often i find myself knowing fully well how what im picking is completely useless , but i still want anyway cause i think it is cool to roleplay it.

Hm. This might be something some folks consider in the whole shouting match, too. I know I've seen the term 'murder-hobo' thrown about, usually pejoratively, with the implication of 'all you do is go places and kill stuff, you psychopath'. I do like the idea of having something to do, not just when not fighting, but having at least some sort of ... thing you do, or at least try to do, when you're 'at home'. Play a lute? Forge a sword? Crew a ship? Write a book? Whatever it is, at least.

Then again, those skill points in Craft (weapon) others might suggest I invest elsewhere -- say, Knowledge (Dungeoneering). And I can't remember ever seeing Master Craftsman in any sort of optimisation guide.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Are they exclusive? No, not necessarily. But when someone is making thinly veiled excuses for building power builds, he fuels the belief that they are.

Only among those with the faulty belief that power requires an excuse.

Silver Crusade

Serghar Cromwell wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Serghar Cromwell wrote:
Fake Healer wrote:

People who look at the game and tend to be into number crunching and trying to "win" aren't usually putting the roleplaying in a high priority.

In my experience, people who don't care about the number crunching don't care enough about the game to put any effort into their roleplaying, either.
I was going to say this, but I guess the discussion was over before I got here.
What's the point of building an awesome character if you're not going to write an equally awesome story to tie all your choices together, am I right?

Amen

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, LO Special Edition, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

No they are not.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

What does "writing an awesome story" have to do with roleplaying?

What's the point of building an awesome character, if you're not going to bring the character to life at the table? If the character isn't going to face hard choices, triumphs and despair?

Roleplaying happens in the game, not the backstory.

I respectfully disagree with you on this point. The back story is the baseline for how your character makes choices in game. With a more detailed background, the easier it is to make proper character choices in game. And while you are correct in that the role=play occurs in game, discounting your character background, or not writing one at all, hinders role-play in game.

I find that the backgrounds I write help keep me focused on how my characters will act in most common situations and also some uncommon situations.

When those rare situations come up, where I can not instantly make a proper "in character" decision, I find that taking a moment to consider all my background, as well as character choices that have happened "in game" helps me greatly in deciding what to do.

Because of this, I feel that the character background is one of the most important parts of role-playing in game.


Cornellius Aggredor wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Serghar Cromwell wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Serghar Cromwell wrote:
Fake Healer wrote:

People who look at the game and tend to be into number crunching and trying to "win" aren't usually putting the roleplaying in a high priority.

In my experience, people who don't care about the number crunching don't care enough about the game to put any effort into their roleplaying, either.
I was going to say this, but I guess the discussion was over before I got here.
What's the point of building an awesome character if you're not going to write an equally awesome story to tie all your choices together, am I right?

What does "writing an awesome story" have to do with roleplaying?

What's the point of building an awesome character, if you're not going to bring the character to life at the table? If the character isn't going to face hard choices, triumphs and despair?

Roleplaying happens in the game, not the backstory.

I respectfully disagree with you on this point. The back story is the baseline for how your character makes choices in game. With a more detailed background, the easier it is to make proper character choices in game.

I find that the backgrounds I write help keep me focused on how my characters will act in most common situations and also some uncommon situations.

When those rare situations come up, where I can not instantly make a proper "in character" decision, I find that taking a moment to consider all my background, as well as character choices that have happened "in game" helps me greatly in deciding what to do.

Because of this, I feel that the character background is one of the most important parts of role-play.

It definitely does help some people. It doesn't work for me. As I suggested above, it can actually sabotage the character for me. Keep it from developing personality. The buzzwords are "Develop-At-Start" vs "Develop-in-Play". Your approach is probably more common.

Even beyond that though, I've seen characters with long elaborate back-stories and little to no personality in the game. Backstory can help some, but it isn't by itself roleplay. Which was my original point.


Didn't see anyone mention this thing that a lot of self titled "roleplayers, not rollplayers" do.

If you try to "roleplay" as suave "in character" but your character doesn't have mechanical backing to that suaveness, you're not roleplaying.

drops mic, leaves forum forever


10 people marked this as a favorite.

The biggest problem I see with pure “Roleplayers” is that their characters often don’t match their concept. Many of them seem to go out of their way to make purposely incompetent characters. I had one player whose concept was a swashbuckling swordsman like out of the Three Musketeers. This was before the swashbuckler class came out. I expected him to be some sort of fighter or ranger instead he made rogue that ignored all combat in favor of “Roleplaying”. He did not even bother with weapon finesse even though he had a high DEX. To him skill focus diplomacy was more important.

He was too “honorable” to use sneak attack so he completely sucked at combat. He also got pissed when he got into duels and got beaten every time. After losing every duel he was in his character developed a reputation as the worst swordsman in the kingdom, which for some reason pissed him off. He kept trying to “Roleplay” being a great swordsman, but it never worked. I even gave him the opportunity to rewrite his character but he did not want to.

Having a good concept and background story is important, but your character should be capable of doing what your concept and background story says he did. While a good GM should adjust the story to the players you can only go so far. When I write up NPC’s they are generally good at what they do. If you want to be the best swordsman in the kingdom you had better be very competent with the sword. If your concept is that you are a buffoon in combat and can’t fight your way out of a wet paper sack then by all means ignore combat, otherwise your character should be able to handle themselves in combat.

Also consider that the adventuring is a very dangerous occupation. You are supposed to be the A-Team not the Three Stodges. How the hell are you supposed to rescue the princess if she can beat the crap out of you? This actually happened to the character I mentioned.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

They are not mutually exclusive. However, as Mysterious Stranger relates, the game mechanics reward "rollplay" more than "pure" roleplaying (unless the GM is almost completely ditching game mechanics).

Personally, my preference is for "roleplay, with the mechanical backing to rollplay the concept." I'm not that fond of "mechanics first" character development (hardcore character optimization "builds") that focus on only gaining the "biggest numbers" possible (usually by sacrificing everything beyond one, or possibly two, aspects); this is usually what people mean when the "rollplay" label gets used.

Instead, I start with a concept and use "good enough" mechanics to suit the central aspect of the concept, while still retaining some ability in other aspects. In my experience, this sort of "well-rounded" character is both more enjoyable to roleplay and can contribute mechanically in a wider range of game situations; if I'm "only" 90% as effective as the "optimal build" at the central aspect, but 50+% better in at least two or three other aspects (so that I'm not relegated to being a "one-trick pony"), then I consider that an acceptable "loss."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I must have a bad definition for these terms. My understanding of "rollplay" is that it is the absence of "roleplay".

I have never equated it with the mechanics of the game. It's merely someone who rolls dice with no corresponding descriptive dialogue.

"I attack." *rolls* "I hit." *rolls* "X damage. I'll move here and end my turn."

I think everyone takes that kind of action from time to time. So, I'm not trying to shame anyone who does that. Some just do it more than others. Occasionally, you find someone who does it almost exclusively. That is what I would term a "rollplayer".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Anyone who uses the term roll player with a straight face defines them in such a way that they're exclusive. Roll-players are defined as people who don't play in the fashion approved by the person making the distinction. Role-players are defined as people who do play in the fashion approved by the people making the distinction.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost wrote:
Anyone who uses the term roll player with a straight face defines them in such a way that they're exclusive. Roll-players are defined as people who don't play in the fashion approved by the person making the distinction. Role-players are defined as people who do play in the fashion approved by the people making the distinction.

Unfortunately, this is more often than not the case.

Tempest Stormwind wrote:

I still stand by the argument that this is a fundamental difference between old school (basic D&D: 1 race/class, AD&D: very limted multi-classing) vrs new school (I buy a book and there is a class in their and I want it gimmie gimmie). The trend I see is old school = roleplayers, new school = optomizers.

Note to New school people: Don't listen to what you hear, you aren't a dork if you roleplay. It is ok to indulge in what D&D is all about, roleplay. If you try it and have a good DM, I guarantee you'll have a blast and won't care so much about optomizing.
Okay, that's it.
I'm hereby proposing a new logical fallacy. It's not a new idea, but maybe with a catchy name (like the Oberoni Fallacy) it will catch on.
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.
Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.
Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.
(I admit that there are some diehards on both sides -- the RP fanatics who refuse to optimize as if strong characters were the mark of the Devil and the min/max munchkins who couldn't RP their way out of a paper bag without setting it on fire -- though I see these as extreme examples. The vast majority of people are in between, and thus the generalizations hold. The key word is 'automatically')
Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's gameplay. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Roleplaying deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else.
A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.
Claiming that an optimizer cannot roleplay (or is participating in a playstyle that isn't supportive of roleplaying) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
How does this impact "builds"? Simple.
In one extreme (say, Pun-Pun), they are thought experiments. Optimization tests that are not intended to see actual gameplay. Because they do not see gameplay, they do not commit the fallacy.
In the other extreme, you get the drama queens. They could care less about the rules, and are, essentially, playing free-form RP. Because the game is not necessary to this particular character, it doesn't fall into the fallacy.
By playing D&D, you opt in to an agreement of sorts -- the rules describe the world you live in, including yourself. To get the most out of those rules, in the same way you would get the most out of yourself, you must optimize in some respect (and don't look at me funny; you do it already, you just don't like to admit it. You don't need multiclassing or splatbooks to optimize). However, because it is a role-playing game, you also agree to play a role. This is dependent completely on you, and is independent of the rules.
And no, this isn't dependent on edition, or even what roleplaying game you're doing. If you are playing a roleplaying game with any form of rules or regulation, this fallacy can apply. The only difference is the nature of the optimization (based on the rules of that game; Tri-Stat optimizes differently than d20) or the flavor of the roleplay (based on the setting; Exalted feels different from Cthulu).
Conclusion: D&D, like it or not, has elements of both optimization AND roleplay in it. Any game that involves rules has optimization, and any role-playing game has roleplay. These are inherent to the game.
They go hand-in-hand in this sort of game. Deal with it. And in the name of all that is good and holy, stop committing the Stormwind Fallacy in the meantime.

I'll leave this here for reference later in the thread when someone inevitably brings it up.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Crusader wrote:

I must have a bad definition for these terms. My understanding of "rollplay" is that it is the absence of "roleplay".

I have never equated it with the mechanics of the game. It's merely someone who rolls dice with no corresponding descriptive dialogue.

"I attack." *rolls* "I hit." *rolls* "X damage. I'll move here and end my turn."

I think everyone takes that kind of action from time to time. So, I'm not trying to shame anyone who does that. Some just do it more than others. Occasionally, you find someone who does it almost exclusively. That is what I would term a "rollplayer".

The thing is that descriptive dialogue is not roleplaying.

Roleplaying is making decisions in the shoes of your character.

On that basis, how you fluff your actions is completely irrelevant to whether or not you are roleplaying. What actions you are choosing to make is relevant. Someone who shouts out "I HACK THE ORC WITH MY LEGENDARY GREATAXE "GORESLASHER" AND SCREAM "GLORY TO MIGHTY TORAG AND DEATH TO HIS ENEMIES"" isn't really making a different decision to "I hit the orc with my axe". Not in any meaningful sense. So they are pretty much doing the same amount of roleplay. One of them is probably also being a method actor (which is OK) while the other isn't (also OK), but neither of them are any more of a "rollplayer" than the other. That's why a lot of the people on this thread find the term meaningless. Roleplaying is not speaking in first person or saying rousing speeches(especially with a -1 Diplomacy), so the lack of these isn't really a negative from a roleplaying perspective (which is how the rollplayer term is generally used). Not to say that people don't stop roleplaying sometimes, but usually that is due to some metagame aspect* and that is actually the thing that should be discussed instead of throwing around some silly pejorative.

*Not all metagaming is bad either despite it implicitly stopping roleplay. Accepting random people into the party despite having no reason to trust them because they flash their PC card is a classic example.

1 to 50 of 272 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / do people think "rollplaying" and "roleplaying" are mutually exclusive? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.