|
The other night, myself and a friend were discussing what it was to roleplay. He has some very strong opinions on the matter. I do as well, but I also realize that it is a very nebulous thing, open to individual interpretation. That being said, I do believe that a definitive line can be drawn between what is and what is not roleplaying (it is actually placing this line that is what makes roleplaying so nebulous)…
I was curious, as to what the fine people of these boards define as what is and what is not roleplaying, as it pertains to table-top gaming…
I liken it to immersing yourself into the role of a character with as much enthusiasm as Hollywood actors immerse themselves when on the set shooting a movie. This could also mean putting yourself into the role of a character (i.e. you essentially play yourself as a fighter, wizard, monk, or what have you)…
This means that you would say to the GM that; “I walk into the inn”, “I walk up to the innkeeper”, etc. And when you speak to said innkeeper, you do so, again, like two actors shooting a movie would (i.e. in character)…
So again, how do you guys define roleplaying?
And as a “bonus” question, do you think that interaction with “non essential” NPCs (that is, those NPCs that are not essential to the main story or plot) to be useless or pointless?
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
The other night, myself and a friend were discussing what it was to roleplay. He has some very strong opinions on the matter. I do as well, but I also realize that it is a very nebulous thing, open to individual interpretation. That being said, I do believe that a definitive line can be drawn between what is and what is not roleplaying (it is actually placing this line that is what makes roleplaying so nebulous)…
I was curious, as to what the fine people of these boards define as what is and what is not roleplaying, as it pertains to table-top gaming…
I liken it to immersing yourself into the role of a character with as much enthusiasm as Hollywood actors immerse themselves when on the set shooting a movie. This could also mean putting yourself into the role of a character (i.e. you essentially play yourself as a fighter, wizard, monk, or what have you)…
This means that you would say to the GM that; “I walk into the inn”, “I walk up to the innkeeper”, etc. And when you speak to said innkeeper, you do so, again, like two actors shooting a movie would (i.e. in character)…
So again, how do you guys define roleplaying?
And as a “bonus” question, do you think that interaction with “non essential” NPCs (that is, those NPCs that are not essential to the main story or plot) to be useless or pointless?
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Role-playing to me isn't hard-line "must be in character" all the time...
It's getting together with friends, and having fun. Unfortunately I don't have a group capable of hard-core RP atm, so mostly it's tactical gaming with us...problem solving etc...
I like to get into character more than the rest of my players, which can be a bit odd at times...
To me, roleplaying is little short of acting. It involves being in character...speaking as the character...trying to transcend the game itself and doing things for the sake of doing them...not due to experience award, treasure, etc...
My definition is obviously so far from the norm as to be useless as input.
Role-playing takes place when you play a role. It doesn't need to be "acting". It doesn't require that you speak in-character. It doesn't even require that you say word-for-word what your character says. As long as you are imagining what your character would do, and having your character do it, you are role-playing. Don't over-think it.
Role-playing takes place when you play a role. It doesn't need to be "acting". It doesn't require that you speak in-character. It doesn't even require that you say word-for-word what your character says. As long as you are imagining what your character would do, and having your character do it, you are role-playing. Don't over-think it.
Ha!
Look...look...I'm playing the role of an effete gamer wondering why Angeline Jolie isn't on my lap!
Hey...lookie look....I'm someone with an opinion...and it supercedes others opinions...ooooh...lookie lookie...
Now I'm someone with an educated opinion...and look...it's worth it's weight in goose down...LOOK...I's role playin!!! :)
|
|
Role-playing takes place when you play a role. It doesn't need to be "acting". It doesn't require that you speak in-character. It doesn't even require that you say word-for-word what your character says. As long as you are imagining what your character would do, and having your character do it, you are role-playing. Don't over-think it.
To me, what you describe is just merely gaming. Heck, you can apply what you describe to a game of chess or monopoly (remember, I did say I held a strong opinion on the matter).
I did solicit opinions, and tossed mine out as well. I'm not saying yours is wrong, or that mine is correct (merely that I do not share your view)...
However, I thank you for sharing your opinion on the matter :-)
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Role Playing is....role playing. To me its nebulous. Undefineable, and uncommunicatable to those who haven't done it. It can't be described, it has to be shown.
But then again, I beleive in both Science and a Creator with equal faith, so I'm just wierd like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me, what you describe is just merely gaming. Heck, you can apply what you describe to a game of chess or monopoly (remember, I did say I held a strong opinion on the matter).
No. No, no, no.
There are no characters in either chess or Monopoly. You don't play as someone else. You have no motivations that are not "Win the game." You never need to ask yourself "What would my character do?" because you don't have a character - your motivations are your own, and usually revolve around winning the game in question.
A role-playing game always involves dropping you into a character's shoes. This character has definition (of a sort), whether it is pre-existing or injected by you, the player. In a traditional Japanese-style role-playing game, you have a character, but that character's development is largely set in stone - it is defined largely independently of you. In a traditional table-top role-playing game, you have a character and that character's development is almost entirely left up to you. Both share the all-important element of a character who is distinct from (but controlled by) the player - this, I'm convinced, is what separates a role-playing game from any other game out there.
Beyond that, however, there are few - if any - further requirements. I think a lot of people want to believe that they are "true role-players", claiming that any game which does not reach the level of character interaction, socialization or development as their own isn't a real role-playing game. This is a waste of time. There are always going to be groups further along that spectrum than yours who feel that you aren't doing "real role-playing" because you don't have the accents right, or whatever. On the whole, I've found that this attitude of only certain ways of playing a role-playing game qualifying as real role-playing characterizes a rather significant, elitist faction of tabletop gamers.
Now, broadening the definition of a role-playing game to include any game in which you play anything remotely resembling a role is a possibility, but a useless one - at that point we really have turned "role-playing game" into a term that can describe any game, and thus its utility as its own term is nil.
You have no motivations that are not "Win the game."
All too often, that is all I have seen at role playing games.
|
|
Beyond that, however, there are few - if any - further requirements.
It is that statement that makes the definition of roleplaying so nebulous...
I (obviously) do not agree. That definition to me, is too narrow. Why? Because if I play at just that "level" I am not having as much fun as I could be having, because I enjoy a deeper level than that...
To me, if I limit myself to just that level of play, I feel as though I might as well be playing a video game RPG (such as Oblivion, or Fable II)...
But I realize other people enjoy other styles, which is why I posed the original question; to see what styles others here enjoyed...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
I just get together with friends and worry about having a good gaming experience. I'll leave the "role-playing" to those people that like to dress up like nurses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Beyond that, however, there are few - if any - further requirements.It is that statement that makes the definition of roleplaying so nebulous...
I (obviously) do not agree. That definition to me, is too narrow. Why? Because if I play at just that "level" I am not having as much fun as I could be having, because I enjoy a deeper level than that...
To me, if I limit myself to just that level of play, I feel as though I might as well be playing a video game RPG (such as Oblivion, or Fable II)...
But I realize other people enjoy other styles, which is why I posed the original question; to see what styles others here enjoyed...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
No, that wasn't the purpose behind your original question. You asked people to define role-playing, not to explain their preferred style of play. It's defined more broadly than your specific example because your specific example is specific. There are plenty of people who do not play at your "level" (note the tone of the post - "deeper level", "limit myself to just that level", "might as well be playing a video game" - imagine a how a professional basketball player might talk about his game, and you could easily come up with language like this) who are role-playing all the same. My preferred style of play is not the same as the base definition for role-playing, and neither is yours.
Furthermore, I don't think you understand the concept behind narrow vs. broad definitions. The definition I gave for role-playing was broad because it can be applied to many different styles of play, and yet you referred to it as narrow. The definition you gave is the narrow one, because it can be applied to far fewer styles of play (for instance, your definition fails to include those who do not speak in-character for all their interaction - this is one aspect of your definition that makes it more narrow). Not that narrow definitions are bad. On the contrary, narrow definitions are more useful than broad definitions (because they convey more information), as long as they remain accurate. The definition's accuracy needs to be established first, and that's what we're discussing.
(for instance, your definition fails to include those who do not speak in-character for all their interaction - this is one aspect of your definition that makes it more narrow).
As a DM, I would find such a restriction bothersome, especially when I am running multiple NPCs at the same time. I imagine trying to speak only in character could be quite confusing.
I was curious, as to what the fine people of these boards define as what is and what is not roleplaying, as it pertains to table-top gaming…
I'd say that any tabletop experience that goes beyond "I'm moving my dark elf ballistas 4 inches, then charging with my Dogs of War unit, then rolling to regroup..." to be role playing. Certainly, there are degrees of role playing but I think it's an effort in futility [and possibly elitism] to label the third degree role play but the second degree not.
That said, I twitch every time I hear FF, Diablo, WoW or any other video game referred to as an "rpg". But there's not much point in making a hassle out of it; fans are going to call their favorite games whatever they please, regardless of what others say. I'm sure there are LARPers who consider D&D to be nothing more than a war game.
And as a “bonus” question, do you think that interaction with “non essential” NPCs (that is, those NPCs that are not essential to the main story or plot) to be useless or pointless?
No, but I rarely do so as a player. I like to keep the adventure moving along in games that I play in, so when it becomes clear that an NPC isn't relevant I tend to move on to the action ASAP.
TS
That said, I twitch every time I hear FF, Diablo, WoW or any other video game referred to as an "rpg".
I agree, it is true that the term RPG has a newer connotation where it applies to any video game with a (at least somewhat) transparent, evolving system of tracking character statistics, and that these statistics influence gameplay. They do remain role-playing games, though, in my mind. Although you are very restricted in what you can accomplish (bounded by the confines of the game's programming), you play a role all the same - you have a character with some motivation. This is no different than playing D&D with a DM who keeps a very tight rein on what the players experience. While you can certainly opt for a more sandbox style of gameplay in D&D where the DM determines the game by reacting to player decisions, it is no more valid than a style of gameplay where the players are restricted to the confines of the adventure, agreeing in advance to follow along with the story and encounters that the DM has created. The latter is what you have in a video game RPG, albeit with less wiggle room, no personal interaction and on a screen instead of a tabletop.
The gaming materials you use when you sit down to play D&D (or other systems) are defined as "role-playing game", so you are playing a "role-playing game" the moment you use those materials for your game.
The question the OP raises is if there is a certain degree of interaction with PCs/NPCs or "speaking in character" that should be called "role-playing" in order to seperate it from other forms of gaming.
I think that you indeed can have a deeper roleplaying experience if you really act and speak in character, but not everyone is a good actor. If someone feels forced to act and doesn´t enjoy it, the whole gaming experience can be affected. So the definition of "roleplaying" must be broader to include all the gaming experience from groups sitting around a table and using "roleplaying" materials.
The point that in my opinion seperates roleplaying games from other forms of gaming is indeed the seemingly useless (inter)actions, which have nothing to do with "winning" the game, e.g. if the group spends hours in a tavern or the group plays out a shopping tour etc.
This makes it so difficult to explain to non-gamers what exactly you are doing in this game.
|
|
No, that wasn't the purpose behind your original question.
I'm beginning to feel, you see me as some elitist gamer that would not deign to sit at a gaming table with anyone that does not share my style or view (definition if you will) of roleplaying...
This isn't so...
I personally like to game in the way that I mentioned in my OP. If I share a gaming table with a person or persons that are uncomfortable doing that (or simply don't care to), I do not get up and walk away. Nor do I change the style in which I play. I just continue playing in my preferred style, and let the others at the table play in theirs. I make no rude comments (such as "you might have more fun if you played thusly..."), I don't think negatively towards them (or think that their way is somehow wrong), or talk down to them in any way, nor do I twist their arm and tell them to play differently...
I said that I thought your definition too narrow (for my tastes) because your definition as you wrote it, did not allow for any greater degree(s) than that which you stated. You even said "don't over think it" (to which I am not)...
Now, you did clarify your definition in your last post to allow a greater diversity of style. So yes, given that, I use a more narrow definition :-)
You made the reference of pro basketball players using that kind of language to define their game (which the "star players" do). I would use music as an analogy: Some people like bubblegum pop, some people like more complex stuff. I prefer more complexity in my game...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
I'm beginning to feel, you see me as some elitist gamer that would not deign to sit at a gaming table with anyone that does not share my style or view (definition if you will) of roleplaying...
This isn't so...
I don't see you as that at all.
I said that I thought your definition too narrow (for my tastes) because your definition as you wrote it, did not allow for any greater degree(s) than that which you stated. You even said "don't over think it" (to which I am not)...
My definition definitely provided for greater degrees. My definition set a baseline for what role-playing is, establishing that anything which included the elements I discussed qualifies as role-playing. Since your preferred playstyle does include the elements I discussed your preferred playstyle is role-playing. I don't think you're quite grasping the concept. My definition is purposefully broader than yours, because yours fits within it (but defines role-playing far more narrowly than I do). It's not like I said "If you do more than this, you're not role-playing!" (whereas you did say the equivalent of "If you do less than this, you're not role-playing!")
You made the reference of pro basketball players using that kind of language to define their game (which the "star players" do). I would use music as an analogy: Some people like bubblegum pop, some people like more complex stuff. I prefer more complexity in my game...
I still think my comparison is valid.
i think there are two concepts or definitions that are mixed up at the moment.
One concept is "roleplaying" as the OP defines it, which means acting in the role of another person.
The other concept is "playing a role-playing game", which includes all the gaming experiences around the table and the feeling what roleplaying means for gamers.
Let´s separate those definitions or we compare apples with pear.
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
I'd be interested to know more about the debate with your friend that started this thread.
TS
|
I have to say, Scott has described my thoughts on the matter pretty accurately, I take the word pretty literally, if you take on role, of a character, you are role playing.
I would say the Warhammer player who takes on the role of the general of the army (as I tend to do, often making sub-optimal choices to reflect this) is role playing; As is the *** war re-enactment society member dressed in his replica armour; so is the LARPer; So is the guy who likes to dress as a Fireman for is SO, or the girl as a nurse; So is the WoW player who gets into thire character
The Warhammer player who min/maxes his army with the pure intent of winning (as the person I play against more often than not does) isn't role playing (he also doesn't "get" DnD, and thinks I'm weird); The WoW "Farmer" or "grinder" really isn't.
Warhammer though, isn't a role playing game, and War Recreation Societies wouldn't really be impressed with being called role players either....So there I guess I agree with the poster above.
Just my 2cp
|
|
I'd be interested to know more about the debate with your friend that started this thread.
TS
Well, my friend (who admits to having an elitist gamer's attitude) and I were discussing D&D; such as its roots, and where it has gone from there. This naturally brought up 4th edition (which he absolutely refuses to play)...
He says those who play that edition are just gaming, and not true role players. While I do not particularly like 4e, I told him that many of the players of that edition are true role players...
It was from there that we started talking about what is and what is not roleplaying (with actually little else being said about 4e during this debate)...
Why does he feel that way towards those that like and play 4e? He sees it as a system that caters to munchkins and munchkinism, what with healing surges, the warlord's ability to heal with words, etc...
So he feels that those whom are drawn to 4e are naturally munchkins...
He may hold some elitist gaming attitudes, but he is a damn good gamer...
BTW - Just to be clear, while I share some of his views of what it is to be roleplaying (which I have shared previously), I DO NOT share his views of those that play 4th edition!
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Why does he feel that way towards those that like and play 4e? He sees it as a system that caters to munchkins and munchkinism, what with healing surges, the warlord's ability to heal with words, etc...
So he feels that those whom are drawn to 4e are naturally munchkins...
He may hold some elitist gaming attitudes, but he is a damn good gamer...
BTW - Just to be clear, while I share some of his views of what it is to be roleplaying (which I have shared previously), I DO NOT share his views of those that play 4th edition!
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
I think 4e supports many ways of gaming. It can (!) support the roleplaying part by simplifying rules, making combat faster and by this give the roleplaying part more space.
On the other hand i would agree with your friend that a system providing a coherent world by simulating a "real" feeling how things like healing should work also can support roleplaying a lot.But it depends on the gamers. I know some guys who use the 4e system for "real" roleplaying as i defined it and guys who enjoy the combat system and the "gaming" aspects.
The best gaming experiences i had were always a mixture of both.
|
|
I think 4e supports many ways of gaming.
I agree. It was my friend that has problems with the system. And the ONLY reason why I even mentioned 4e here was that TS inquired as to the reason my friend and I were debating what we believe the definition of roleplaying to be...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
|
And as a “bonus” question, do you think that interaction with “non essential” NPCs (that is, those NPCs that are not essential to the main story or plot) to be useless or pointless?
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
You can't always tell who's going to be relevant to the plot without some interation, though.
If looking for clues, the high-level, high society noble may be a blithering idiot, and no help at all, while the penniless street-urchin may have seen the whole thing, and be the key to saving the kingdom....
He says those who play that edition are just gaming, and not true role players.
Ignorance is sad.
TS
He says those who play that edition are just gaming, and not true role players.
Ignorance is sad.
TS
I doubt ignorance is in play, here. This sounds like arrogance and elitism.
|
|
TSI doubt ignorance is in play, here. This sounds like arrogance and elitism.
Well, I did say he admittedly held on to some elitist gamer attitudes. But since he has not even perused the system, there is much ignorance on the subject involved...
Everyone has his or her own flaws, and I‘m sure he could point mine out in a heartbeat :-)
He's been a good friend for over 25 years...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
(for instance, your definition fails to include those who do not speak in-character for all their interaction - this is one aspect of your definition that makes it more narrow).As a DM, I would find such a restriction bothersome, especially when I am running multiple NPCs at the same time. I imagine trying to speak only in character could be quite confusing.
This is one of the reasons that I tend to drink while DM-ing. For some reason, I find that a moderate level of inebriation helps me switch between different characters far more easily. I've roleplayed multiple people in a discussion with the party and themselves each with their own accents and personalities in that way.
As for the general discussion on what roleplaying is and 4ed in particular : it's all playing a role - it's up to you how you express that role. Talking in first or third person is a personal choice. Game systems don't define the roleplaying, although they can en/dis-courage styles. It's perfectly possible to have a deep roleplaying experience in 4ed as any other ed - I presume; I've never played.
I'd say the limit of roleplaying is meta-gaming. As soon as you take decisions for your character based on what you know of the rules, rather than what your character knows of the situation, you are gaming rather than roleplaying. Gaming is fun too... :)
The one piece of writing that I think has had the most effect on what I consider good roleplaying is Ed Greenwoods foreward in the 2nd ed book Forgotten Realms Adventures - the one where he advises using a dictaphone to take notes for yourself while playing noteable NPCs as the DM so that you can get accents and speech patterns consistent.
This is one of the reasons that I tend to drink while DM-ing. For some reason, I find that a moderate level of inebriation helps me switch between different characters far more easily. I've roleplayed multiple people in a discussion with the party and themselves each with their own accents and personalities in that way.(for instance, your definition fails to include those who do not speak in-character for all their interaction - this is one aspect of your definition that makes it more narrow).As a DM, I would find such a restriction bothersome, especially when I am running multiple NPCs at the same time. I imagine trying to speak only in character could be quite confusing.
Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant that I imagine it would be confusing to the players, even with accents and well acted out mannerisms, it is still the DM that they are seeing.
|
|
I imagine it would be confusing to the players, even with accents and well acted out mannerisms, it is still the DM that they are seeing.
I'm not Mr. Super DM (far from it actually), and I manage to pull this off (while sober even)!
My players know who is talking based off my manner of speech, accents, etc. without confusion (and I know this because I ask them)...
It's all a matter of practice (if you don't care to do it, then that's fine. But it has been my experience, that table-top gamers/roleplayers are pretty smart people . If you tried it, I think you'd find that they'd be pretty quick to pick it up with little to no confusion at all) :-)
Besides, it's "still the DM that they are seeing" when you play the part of the virginal princess! Does this confuse or bewilder them?
Rhetorical question, because of course it doesn't! My point is, that players are smart. They figure things out pretty quick...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-