Roll-play vs. Role-play

[Craig Frankum]

How do you play? Are you a the type that goes solely off the numbers or the type that is going to play a specific or well thought idea? And why?

[Kyras Ausks]

i segregate the 2 in my game for the most part ie. role play the dungeon, when its done roll play loot and xp, role play a trip to the city role play the cost and time spent, so on and so forth

it works for my group one pc can roll play their trip to get a boat while another is roll there level up. so very one gets their spot light

[Tholomyes]

I think that turning this into a dichotomy is a false assumption. In terms of characters, especially, since the goal for most characters is to fit into a specific middleground; having an interesting, well thought out character concept is largely the goal, but the issue is also in diminishing the dissonance between fluff and crunch. If you have an incredible idea for a fighter who specializes in crossbows, you'd best hope that you can find a way to make crossbows an effective choice, or otherwise your character has no mechanical way to live up to that fluff.

As for playstyles, this usually comes down to DM preference. The classic example being diplomacy. What measure does good roleplaying have on the effect of a diplomacy check? Does a character with 7 charisma, with no ranks in diplomacy get a bonus for diplomacy, simply because they rolled it well? Are you going to, in essence, penalize the player who's less comfortable role-playing the scene out, simply because they weren't terribly convincing in their argument? Personally I tend to allow a bit of leeway in both directions. A well roleplayed scene will give, maybe a +2; a noticeable bonus, but nothing insurmountable by someone less comfortable, and also nothing that makes the person who tanked charisma suddenly the face of the party.

[Kyras Ausks]

well i have been games where you could call it "roll playing" simple build you pc and fight to the end i have all so seen games where the dies are simply not rolled and some dm lead there games slightly more of one and less of the other it all depends how you learned the game.
some dms thank you should role play your level and have to "learn" your new ability
other dms some pick up the bestiary and work from one cover to the other

but i would like to think most are some where in the middle

[Gorbacz]

Why is that even supposed to be a dichotomy? I mean if I'm crunching numbers over my character AND writing his backstory to help GM and other players engage in creative RP'ing am I doing something badwrong? Is that verboten in D&D to combine the two? Do I have to choose between maxxxcore anime MMO rollplayer and a pink commie wussie thespian roleplayer?

[BigNorseWolf]

Do you have a peanut butter sandwich or a jelly sandwich?

[Kyras Ausks]

attacking the dichotomy

wow the paizo message boards have changed

[Kyoni]

I love to roleplay depending on the rolls made. :-D

[Thalin]

They don't differ; good "Roll players" (min-maxers) are often the best "Role players" as well. I decide on a specific concept of what I want to build (Role playing); then use the resources in my powers to make sure I can do my job well and not be a nuicanse to the party (Roll playing/Min-maxing). I give my characters extravigant personaities and backgrounds, and play them to a "T", but when it comes to my specialities there should be nobody that can do my job well.

*Miley Cyrus sings here*
It's the best of both worlds...

[Evil Lincoln]

Nice. I don't even need to post about the false choice.

We've made some good progress, team.

[darkwarriorkarg]

Evil Lincoln wrote:

Nice. I don't even need to post about the false choice.

We've made some good progress, team.

Finally!

[Lincoln Hills]

You'll often see me on these boards in disagreement with folks who regard one hundred percent optimization as a good thing. You'd also see me in disagreement with folks who regard optimization of any sort as a crime, if A) those people posted on message boards and B) those people played Pathfinder (they tend to find other systems.)

I'd probably class myself as "role play," but I don't see it as a matter of picking sides. Folks who regard PF as more of a combat-oriented boardgame than a story are having fun in their own way, and they're awfully handy to have on your side when a fight plays right to their strengths. The combat-boardgame-type fans cut me some slack in return, because 1) I may speak "in character" a lot more, but I never pass up a chance to provide flanking or otherwise benefit my teammates, and 2) it's sometimes handy to have somebody in the group who drew a map, noted the names of NPCs, and remembers whether we're supposed to help the army in the red uniforms or kill the army in the red uniforms.

[Kazaan]

A child is born with a high natural aptitude for physical fitness. He's got a good, strong frame, is a natural at sports, and he's very tactically-minded. Maybe a little lacking in confidence and ability to figure out complicated things. Mechanically speaking, he has high Str and Con, above average Dex, and lowish Cha and Int. He spent most of his childhood taking advantage of his natural propensities... he was good at sports so he played them... the more he played, the better he got. The better he got, the more he liked them. The more he liked them, the more he played. He also knew that he had shortcomings. He tried his hand at singing and playing instruments, and everyone agreed that it'd be best that he never tried again. He had trouble learning more than basic math and he was a poor liar. So he avoided situations that required him doing things he wasn't all that good at because he didn't like doing things he was bad at. So, all throughout his childhood, he focused on activities that emphasized physical fitness, especially strength and endurance, and avoided activities that required intelligence and analysis and those that required confidence and people skills. When he grew up, he realized his lifelong dream of being a Bard. Is this good "roll-play"? No. This is a character with high Str and Con and low Cha trying to be a class that relies on Cha first and foremost and Int/Dex far more than Str/Con. He picked a class that his stats didn't really support. Is it good "role-play"? Again, no. His background doesn't warrant his choice. It's a complete, out-of-the-blue decision that can only be described as a choice for a fetish-character by a player who, for whatever reason, wanted a "sub-optimal" character. No real person, having been born with those traits, would realistically chose to become a Bard. Those who do starved to death or died by misadventure. Only those upon whom fate smiles are lucky enough to succeed at life like this (read: weighted dice). Particularly bad "roll-play" is bad "role-play" because your character is doing something very un-natural and unexpected as a result of the meta-choices of the player. Now, I can see a character with somewhat-high-but-more-generalized stats with less Cha than a Bard would typically shoot for, but still enough to get by as a Bard realistically being a Bard. Yeah, they're not very good at being a Bard... but they sure can take a hit better than any other Bard you've ever seen.

Now, lets say the child in our story actually made a more reasonable decision and took up Fighter like everyone expected. He was a poor liar so, even though he was quite fit, he had trouble convincing people to do things they'd rather not do. He takes a feat that improves his Intimidate skill and pumped a lot of skill points into Intimidate to compensate. That's adequate, both as Roll-play and Role-play. At some point, he is inspired by a particular deity and decides to take up their service, taking levels in Cleric. While not strictly good stats for an out-and-out Cleric, he has passable aptitudes to make for a decent and somewhat gruff understanding and application of his chosen religion. He's not so good with channeling and he's mediocre at spellcasting, but it gives him a good feeling that when he fights, it's for a higher cause. That's warranted by role-play but also by roll-play because it gives him some backup support abilities so he's not just an out-and-out meat-headed Fighter. Hell, even a dip into Sorcerer may be waranted because Sorcerous bloodlines are kind of unpredictable things that, while natural for a highly confident person to realize early on, might remain dormant for longer in a person lacking Cha until they've built up enough physical abilities and confidence in themselves to start paying attention to that power calling out to them from within. And then, there are others for whom, everything is about that one thing they do and do well. Our child could just as easily be a Fighter his whole life, devote his entire life to "the battle" in it's most gritty, visceral form. That would still be good both in terms of "roll-play" and "role-play".

[Adamantine Dragon]

I role play my roll play and vice versa.

[ShadowcatX]

This isn't an either or proposition.

[Lurk3r]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Do you have a peanut butter sandwich or a jelly sandwich?

Both! And PB&J sometimes.

That's the way I play too- it really depends on the game. Heavy roleplay isn't really necessary in a dungeon crawl and heavy roll-play isn't appropriate in a court intrigue. Most campaigns fall somewhere in the middle, but I enjoy the extremes sometimes too.

[TOZ]

I fuse them in an unholy combination called 'playing the game'.

[Lincoln Hills]

Dang! He said the same thing in fewer words! I forget whether that means he wins or loses. Are we playing "Concise Definitions" or "Congressional Filibuster"?

[Craig Frankum]

I tend to combine the two depending on my character concept. I have had a wizard who refused to do anything of physical exertion as according to his intellect, he believed such tasks were beneath him. On the other hand, I had a barbarian whose diplomatic solution was punch the guy in the face. And there have been a multitude in between. I will admit that I'm a bit more committed to the "role" play aspect of it and "roll" play to the needs of the other. I began this thread to obtain peoples thought on the subject. I have all to often seen in forums that if your not min/max-ing, your doing something wrong. The same goes for playing concept because it is not "optimized".

[Shadowborn]

I tried to do both at once. My head asploded. True story.

[meatrace]

TOZ wrote:

I fuse them in an unholy combination called 'playing the game'.

Inorite? I just play the game the way I like doing so. I don't think one gets in the way of the other, but I'm also not terribly cognizant of it.

[BigDTBone]

I dislike the term "roll-playing" immensely. "Roll-playing" is a disparaging term used by people who don't like heavy rules or people using the rules as part of strategy decisions. Nobody calls themselves a "roll-player."

Role-playing Game is an inclusive phrase by design. As in a game (read: something with rules and numbers and probably dice) and Role-playing (read: telling part of a story from a character's point of view). The idea is to play a game and role-play at the same time. You can do both.

If you don't like the "game" part of RPG's then just get together with your friends and role-play, no need for expensive books or dice or even a table. Have fun doing it, but don't tell me I'm an "optimizer, min/maxer, jerk GM, jerk player...."

If you don't like the "role-play" part of RPG's then just get together with your friends and game, no need for back stories, or artwork, or plot hooks. Have fun doing it, but don't tell me I'm a "Grognard, elitist, jerk GM, jerk player...."

/rant