What is Role-Playing?


Gamer Life General Discussion

1 to 50 of 138 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Is it killing monsters with die rolls?

Is it building a pyramid of character abilities that produces something unique?

Is it interacting with other people, socially, though dialog?

I read many threads here that get caught up in the Role Playing versus Roll Playing discussion, but what I am particularly curious about, is what do you think Role Playing is? How do you do it so that you feel like you are having a good time, having fun?


In short it's making a character - a personality - and making it react to game situations as you envision that character would.

I would contend that the first two issues you mentioned are hardly roleplaying at all. They are gaming but can be done with only the most tangential connection to any personality or character.
The last is definitely roleplaying though not the entirety of roleplaying.

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

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:
I read many threads here that get caught up in the Role Playing versus Roll Playing discussion, but what I am particularly curious about, is what do you think Role Playing is?

Roleplaying is, pretty literally, playing a role. That is, once you know the "role" of a given character, you "play" accordingly.

A character's "role" could be described as perhaps their definition: what makes them tick, what they're capable of (and what they're not capable of), how they view the world, etc.

To "play" (in this context) means to declare what it is your character is doing: making choices, taking action, and so forth.

Thus, playing the role means that the choices you make and the actions you declare and the ways you talk to other characters are in synch with your character's personality, worldview, and capabilities.

In short, to roleplay is to accurately portray your character.

With that in mind:

Quote:
Is it killing monsters with die rolls?

If killing monsters is something your character would do in that situation, then to do so is to roleplay while to not do so is to fail to roleplay. The converse holds true as well.

The use of dice is optional, though; tends to depend on the system being used.

Quote:
Is it building a pyramid of character abilities that produces something unique?

No, but once you've built that unique set of abilities, you've made progress on creating the "role" that's necessary in order to roleplay. If you and your buddy create characters with the same capabilities but portray them as having different capabilities, then at least one of you is failing to roleplay.

The differentiation of character abilities is a necessary component to roleplaying.

Quote:
Is it interacting with other people, socially, though dialog?

Depends entirely on whether the manner in which you portray your character's social activity is congruent with the character. For a character defined as antisocial and/or a poor speaker/socializer, off-putting grunts and lack of dialogue would be roleplaying while long conversations with NPCs would be a failure to roleplay.

Talking is no different than combat or skills: it's only roleplay if it's congruent with the character.

Quote:
How do you do it so that you feel like you are having a good time, having fun?

What do you mean "how"? If you like roleplaying, then you'll have fun roleplaying. If you don't, you probably won't. I don't understand this question.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

IMO, role playing is playing a character first and worrying about the mechanics/system last.

Role players can make good and bad decisions about what their characters do.

Roll playing is playing a game where you maximize your character's mechanical bonuses in a few areas while minimizing any resources elsewhere, that way the character performs very well mechanically.

Roll players make good and bad die rolls for their characters.

Most players are a mix of these role-roll/ying-yang forces, however a small minority are mostly role or roll, both can be irritating and both can be fun.

These are just the two main ways to play the game and have fun!


I think that some of the things Jiggy has said give me a reason to think a bit more. Role playing, he seems to suggest, is intricately tied to character build options. So selecting certain feats, say, and then not using them might be considered a failure to role play (if role playing means establishing the "role" through specific criteria selections. Which sort of agrees with Bjorn, in the "Building the role" concept, but Moragan suggests that "playing the character can be done without worrying about the mechanics, which seems to suggest something not completely different, but not the same.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

As mechanics are a system with which to roleplay (as Jiggy illustrated), it is entirely impossible to separate the two. There is no "rollplaying vs. roleplaying". There is good roleplaying, there is bad roleplaying, and there is reduced roleplaying (when a group has little or no interest in telling a story in their game, Which Is Entirely Okay).

Good roleplaying can come in many packages: Rules-heavy, rules-light, serious, comedic, having super powerful PCs, having the worst PCs ever, 4E, 5E, 2E, Pathfinder, or any other system.

Bad roleplaying can take many forms: Being inconsistent with your character, being a jerk, illogical metagaming*, being a jerk, dominating the game so quieter players never get to participate, prioritizing a strong build over fitting the established setting, refusing to engage, or, of course, being a jerk. Really, though, bad roleplaying is just roleplaying that isn't fun for everyone.

Reduced roleplaying is less a third category and more a sliding scale that goes next to either of the above. Some good roleplaying is very minimalist. Not everyone's as into the improv. The above examples of "bad roleplaying" are only bad when everyone's not okay with it. If the group isn't trying to roleplay much to begin with, metagaming isn't really an issue.

*It's one thing to assume your monster hunter knows better than to approach the rabbit on the stump. It's another to have your PC repeatedly try to reveal another PC's secret that you only only because you saw their character sheet. Seriously, this is so dickish, why do people do that?


yes/no/sometimes
yes/no/sometimes
yes/no/sometimes

This is an impossible question, and any attempt to answer it will almost certainly be considered wrong by someone. Because bottom line, there is no right or complete answer.

Find a group, if the predominant style doesn't suit you get up and go looking for one more suited to you. They are not doing it wrong, neither are you. it's just different and that is, in my humble opinion, a good thing.

When you find the right group, you'll know because you will be having fun - and doing it right for you.

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

Suppose you're a stage actor. Your troupe is supposed to do a semi-improv type of performance, where you're each given a character sketch outlining the general idea of what your character is all about. During the performance, you might have the most amazing accent and the most natural-looking mannerisms and lots of great one-liners and so forth... but if the character you portray doesn't match what was detailed on the character sketch you were supposed to be working from, then you failed.

It's the same with RPGs. Your character sheet shows you the parameters of your character, and if your portrayal doesn't match, you're not roleplaying.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If everyone at the table is having fun, then you're doing it right!


Jiggy wrote:

Suppose you're a stage actor. Your troupe is supposed to do a semi-improv type of performance, where you're each given a character sketch outlining the general idea of what your character is all about. During the performance, you might have the most amazing accent and the most natural-looking mannerisms and lots of great one-liners and so forth... but if the character you portray doesn't match what was detailed on the character sketch you were supposed to be working from, then you failed.

It's the same with RPGs. Your character sheet shows you the parameters of your character, and if your portrayal doesn't match, you're not roleplaying.

I'd say the parallel isn't quite that strong, since the RPG character sheet usually says far more about the capabilities of the character and much less about the motivations and personality.

Especially in games with simpler mechanics, but even in PF, it's possible to have characters with the same build, but roleplay them vastly differently.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
I'd say the parallel isn't quite that strong, since the RPG character sheet usually says far more about the capabilities of the character and much less about the motivations and personality.

You speak as though capabilities were less important to the narrative than motivations/personality. That's not true. You can have two different stories about people of similar temperament with the same goal of becoming the greatest X in the world, but having one of them be a prodigy and the other be inept will create a VASTLY different narrative. Both can be great stories, but they will be different stories, even if the only material difference in the characters is their capabilities. You can't have an "underdog" or "zero to hero" story without putting narrative importance on capabilities.

Favoring personality over capability is no less a handicapped attempt at roleplaying than the reverse is.

Quote:
Especially in games with simpler mechanics, but even in PF, it's possible to have characters with the same build, but roleplay them vastly differently.

No, it's possible to portray them differently. Portraying and roleplaying are two different things. If two characters have equal chances of picking the lock, and one of them is portrayed as a master thief while the other is portrayed as an "all thumbs" brute, then one (or both!) of the portrayals is wrong, and therefore a failure to roleplay. Roleplay is when your portrayal is accurate.


Jiggy wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I'd say the parallel isn't quite that strong, since the RPG character sheet usually says far more about the capabilities of the character and much less about the motivations and personality.

You speak as though capabilities were less important to the narrative than motivations/personality. That's not true. You can have two different stories about people of similar temperament with the same goal of becoming the greatest X in the world, but having one of them be a prodigy and the other be inept will create a VASTLY different narrative. Both can be great stories, but they will be different stories, even if the only material difference in the characters is their capabilities. You can't have an "underdog" or "zero to hero" story without putting narrative importance on capabilities.

Favoring personality over capability is no less a handicapped attempt at roleplaying than the reverse is.

Quote:
Especially in games with simpler mechanics, but even in PF, it's possible to have characters with the same build, but roleplay them vastly differently.
No, it's possible to portray them differently. Portraying and roleplaying are two different things. If two characters have equal chances of picking the lock, and one of them is portrayed as a master thief while the other is portrayed as an "all thumbs" brute, then one (or both!) of the portrayals is wrong, and therefore a failure to roleplay. Roleplay is when your portrayal is accurate.

So roleplay only involves using your mechanical abilities? I don't think you mean that, but it sounds like it.

(And I don't think the chance to do so matters as much as the actual outcomes - I've had characters where my portrayal was entirely screwed up by a series of early bad rolls. Character's capabilities & intended portrayal was as confident & competent, but he came across as boastful and incompetent because the dice kept him from success long enough to establish a rep.)

Having vastly different capablities will also obviously affect how the character should be played, but even given a specific set of abilities, there are vast differences in how the character can be roleplayed. The capabilities on the sheet do not define everything about the character. You don't have to favor personality over capability, but both contribute to the roleplay.

Unless you're saying there is only one proper "roleplaying" way to portray any given set of stats. In which case, I simply disagree completely. Even in PF, but far more so in systems with simpler build systems.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
So roleplay only involves using your mechanical abilities? I don't think you mean that, but it sounds like it.

I don't think he means that, either, and it doesn't really sound like it to me. :P


No I sort of get that what Jiggy is saying, and I agree, is that the idea is to have a character sheet (character build) that has a whole bunch of different kinds of information, static ability scores, skills and feats, talents, background information, description, and from that collection of data create a "role," that is, play a character that you think exemplifies what is on the character sheet.

So, if you decided to roll up a fighter, gave him a high con and strength, weapon mastery, and athletic skills, but in the background you wrote that he was not to bright or very wise (as evidenced by his scores) and was convinced by a power NPC to infiltrate a band of thieves, so he is trying to "pretend" he is a clever, nimble bandit, but often his actions betray his real abilities,

Then role played him as a high charisma manipulator and interrogator

you could probably be accused of going wrong somewhere in your application of "role Playing"


Well, it wouldn't make much sense to be convincingly high Charisma when you're not. That's like pretending to have a high Strength—it's not really something you can really fake, not least because Charisma is the stat you use to fake things to begin with.

But otherwise, a character trying to act a way they aren't is fine roleplaying. That's a very specific example that doesn't conflict with anything Jiggy or I are saying.


Yes, that would be the middle of my example. A tough, strong fighter could pretend to be a nimble, clever rogue. This would be an interesting role playing choice (and should be indicated on the character sheet, somewhere, that this is the way the player "sees" the character.

I was only trying to say, and I have seen this at many tables, that sometimes a player will be role playing a "type" of character that has no connection to anything that is indicated on the character sheet, and that seems to be misguided.

Now, as a game, you can always play it any way you want to, that's the fun, but if you were to read the guidelines for any activity (fishing, wood carving, bird watching, professional wrestling) and then approached that activity with total disregard for those guidelines, there is a good chance someone may say to you that you are "doing it wrong."

And there is some validity in that.

So, for example, as talented as Andy Kaufman was, when he "decided" to take his particular brand of humor into the world of professional wrestling, at first some of the participants were like, "hey, this is interesting, let's see where this goes." But, eventually, as Andy continued to disregard the input from those people he was interacting with about what was and was not acceptable in the world of Profession Wrestling, he began to be accused of "Doing it Wrong," even if the culture at large didn't understand why that was being said.


Terquem wrote:

No I sort of get that what Jiggy is saying, and I agree, is that the idea is to have a character sheet (character build) that has a whole bunch of different kinds of information, static ability scores, skills and feats, talents, background information, description, and from that collection of data create a "role," that is, play a character that you think exemplifies what is on the character sheet.

So, if you decided to roll up a fighter, gave him a high con and strength, weapon mastery, and athletic skills, but in the background you wrote that he was not to bright or very wise (as evidenced by his scores) and was convinced by a power NPC to infiltrate a band of thieves, so he is trying to "pretend" he is a clever, nibble bandit, but often his actions betray his real abilities,

Then role played him as a high charisma manipulator and interrogator

you could probably be accused of going wrong somewhere in your application of "role Playing"

I guess if you write up a bunch of personality stuff in background or otherwise on the character sheet and then don't follow it, that would be poor roleplaying.

That's not what the talk about capabilities made me think though.

My point, given an example like that character and assuming the background wasn't written up explicitly, was more that you could correctly roleplay that character as someone neither bright or wise who realized that and accepted his limitations or as someone who tries to act smart and wise, but fails. Both could be good roleplay. Both justified by the same mechanical stats.


I think the hobby needs a new term, as there are two things occupying the space of the word "roleplaying". For one, there is the game as a whole "roleplaying game". That means that the game itself is roleplaying, so engaging in the game (which is defined by that game) is roleplaying, because it's a roleplaying game.

Then people use "roleplaying" to define actions taken within the fiction as viewed from the lens of the character taking actions. This is sometimes defined more narrowly as dialogue by some people during arguments, or dialogue is used as the most compelling example.

The problem is using the same term for these two things is contradictory. If the game is a "roleplaying game" and that game requires you to choose special abilities, then the act of choosing said abilities is playing the "roleplaying game", which means you are roleplaying. The second definition of the term excludes this definition though (though the first definition is more inclusive).

So, to make the discussion more clear, we should either rename the types of games, or use a different term when discussing the portrayal of characters through actions and words.

Cause honestly, to me the answer to "what is roleplaying?" in terms of this hobby, would be "playing a roleplaying game."


Terquem wrote:

Yes, that would be the middle of my example. A tough, strong fighter could pretend to be a nimble, clever rogue. This would be an interesting role playing choice (and should be indicated on the character sheet, somewhere, that this is the way the player "sees" the character.

I was only trying to say, and I have seen this at many tables, that sometimes a player will be role playing a "type" of character that has no connection to anything that is indicated on the character sheet, and that seems to be misguided."

I'd honestly disagree with "should be indicated on the character sheet, somewhere, that this is the way the player "sees" the character."

If it's there, it should be roleplayed, but I prefer to have very little personality stuff written up ahead of time. My PC tend to develop character during play and attempts to define up front what it's going to be often backfire for me.
Which draws out a larger point - portraying the character's personality should be consistent, allowing for character development of course as people can change. That should hold not just with what's been written on the sheet, but with the character's previous portrayal, actions and motivation.

I'm still not at all convinced that this distinction is what Jiggy was talking about.


Irontruth wrote:

I think the hobby needs a new term, as there are two things occupying the space of the word "roleplaying". For one, there is the game as a whole "roleplaying game". That means that the game itself is roleplaying, so engaging in the game (which is defined by that game) is roleplaying, because it's a roleplaying game.

Then people use "roleplaying" to define actions taken within the fiction as viewed from the lens of the character taking actions. This is sometimes defined more narrowly as dialogue by some people during arguments, or dialogue is used as the most compelling example.

The problem is using the same term for these two things is contradictory. If the game is a "roleplaying game" and that game requires you to choose special abilities, then the act of choosing said abilities is playing the "roleplaying game", which means you are roleplaying. The second definition of the term excludes this definition though (though the first definition is more inclusive).

So, to make the discussion more clear, we should either rename the types of games, or use a different term when discussing the portrayal of characters through actions and words.

Cause honestly, to me the answer to "what is roleplaying?" in terms of this hobby, would be "playing a roleplaying game."

I think that distinction is obvious and pretty clearly understood, inside the hobby at least.

A "roleplaying" game is a game designed for "roleplaying". Not all of the game are equally roleplaying and you can roleplay when doing other things than roleplaying games. This is confusing, but that's not unusual for English and is almost always clear from context. None of the debate in this thread (or other discussions about this, as far as I recall) is driven by confusion on this point.
It's all about what that second definition actually means.

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

My first post wrote:

Thus, playing the role means that the choices you make and the actions you declare and the ways you talk to other characters are in synch with your character's personality, worldview, and capabilities.

In short, to roleplay is to accurately portray your character.

...

Talking is no different than combat or skills: it's only roleplay if it's congruent with the character.

My third post wrote:
Roleplay is when your portrayal is accurate.
thejeff wrote:
So roleplay only involves using your mechanical abilities? I don't think you mean that, but it sounds like it.
thejeff wrote:

I'd honestly disagree with "should be indicated on the character sheet, somewhere, that this is the way the player "sees" the character."

...
I'm still not at all convinced that this distinction is what Jiggy was talking about.

I'm really not sure how to continue this dialogue.


Jiggy wrote:
My first post wrote:

Thus, playing the role means that the choices you make and the actions you declare and the ways you talk to other characters are in synch with your character's personality, worldview, and capabilities.

In short, to roleplay is to accurately portray your character.

...

Talking is no different than combat or skills: it's only roleplay if it's congruent with the character.

My third post wrote:
Roleplay is when your portrayal is accurate.
thejeff wrote:
So roleplay only involves using your mechanical abilities? I don't think you mean that, but it sounds like it.
thejeff wrote:

I'd honestly disagree with "should be indicated on the character sheet, somewhere, that this is the way the player "sees" the character."

...
I'm still not at all convinced that this distinction is what Jiggy was talking about.
I'm really not sure how to continue this dialogue.

Nor am I, honestly.

I really think we're saying similar things, but talking past each other somehow.
Or possibly, we're so far apart that there's no common ground, despite using similar words, but I don't think so.

Let's make one more try:
This started when I commented on being able to distinguish characters with the same capabilities by giving them very different personalities and thus roleplaying them differently. (Paraphrased from the original to use the terminology you've been using since. I am assuming that "capabilities" is at least close to "mechanical abilities on the character sheet", which is what I was originally talking about.)
I did not understand your response to that. I agree with the individual things you said, but don't see their relevance to what seemed to be a counter to my claim.

Capabilities certainly have narrative importance. You can certainly fail to roleplay by portraying your character as if he had different capabilities than he actually does.
Neither of those means there isn't a broad range of roleplaying options available that don't contradict the capabilities.

Does that make sense? Where's the clash here?

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

Quote:
You can certainly fail to roleplay by portraying your character as if he had different capabilities than he actually does.

I agree completely.

Quote:
Neither of those means there isn't a broad range of roleplaying options available that don't contradict the capabilities.

I don't recall contradicting this.

Earlier, it sounded like you were implying that in matters of roleplay, personality/motivation was the primary element while capabilities were somewhere between "secondary" and "unimportant/marginal". (I may have misinterpreted you there.) I then asserted that capabilities and personality were equals in determining the parameters of roleplaying, and you replied to this assertion of equality by saying it sounded like I was saying it was all about mechanics.

Then we got to here.

Are we on the same page now? I'm honestly not sure.


Jiggy wrote:
Quote:
You can certainly fail to roleplay by portraying your character as if he had different capabilities than he actually does.

I agree completely.

Quote:
Neither of those means there isn't a broad range of roleplaying options available that don't contradict the capabilities.

I don't recall contradicting this.

Earlier, it sounded like you were implying that in matters of roleplay, personality/motivation was the primary element while capabilities were somewhere between "secondary" and "unimportant/marginal". (I may have misinterpreted you there.) I then asserted that capabilities and personality were equals in determining the parameters of roleplaying, and you replied to this assertion of equality by saying it sounded like I was saying it was all about mechanics.

Then we got to here.

Are we on the same page now? I'm honestly not sure.

I think so. Or close anyway.

I do generally think of personality as more important. Or perhaps more accurately as needing more attention to keep consistent. To some extent at least, the capabilities take care of themselves. The system enforces it in a way it usually doesn't enforce personality.
I can't portray my character as a master lockpick without having the lockpicking skill to back that up (however it's represented in the given system). The most I can actually do is portray my character as a delusional idiot who thinks he's a great lockpicker.
The same isn't true for personality. In many systems I can switch between shy and humble and aggressive jerk with no rhyme or reason and no mechanical check.

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

thejeff wrote:
I do generally think of personality as more important. Or perhaps more accurately as needing more attention to keep consistent. To some extent at least, the capabilities take care of themselves. The system enforces it in a way it usually doesn't enforce personality.

Depends on the system, I guess.

In Pathfinder, the closest you get is Traits (with optional drawbacks as kind of an afterthought), and that's only after you've gone beyond the Core Rulebook. (There's also alignment, if you're willing to touch it.)

In 5E D&D, every character has a "background" which, although it includes the addition of skill/tool proficiencies, goes beyond it into how the character and the world interact (such as what the commoners tend to think of you, who you're connected to, etc).

In Urban Shadows, the system itself attaches a lot of your mechanics to certain aspects of your personality, to the point that you can't really play the game (or at the very least, can't really advance your character's abilities) without some involvement of personality/motivations.

I assert that (nearly?) every RPG system allows the mechanical representation of both capabilities and personality, it's just that different systems have different levels of vagueness/specificness applied to different areas. Pathfinder is very specific in detailing exactly what you're capable of in combat and what magic you know and what gear you possess, while being vague enough in other areas (like skills) that multiple character tropes/personalities could be represented by the same "+X Diplomacy". In other systems, your combat abilities are the vague part where there might be any number of reasons to just have "+X Combat" but your relationships with NPCs and other PCs is defined in excruciating detail. Still other systems might have different areas represented with pretty balanced levels of mechanical detail.

As long as everything (or at least, every major thing) that can conceptually differentiate one character from another can also mechanically differentiate one character from another, the system enables roleplay. Of course, how much detail is needed in any given area (what counts as "major" differences) is a matter of personal taste. Not everybody needs a representation of the difference between "naturally suave" and "trained in diplomacy", just like not everybody needs a mechanical differentiation between three different types of curved swords (cutlass, katana, scimitar). That's all taste.

Roleplaying just means that whatever is defined is being portrayed.


Jiggy wrote:

I assert that (nearly?) every RPG system allows the mechanical representation of both capabilities and personality, it's just that different systems have different levels of vagueness/specificness applied to different areas. Pathfinder is very specific in detailing exactly what you're capable of in combat and what magic you know and what gear you possess, while being vague enough in other areas (like skills) that multiple character tropes/personalities could be represented by the same "+X Diplomacy". In other systems, your combat abilities are the vague part where there might be any number of reasons to just have "+X Combat" but your relationships with NPCs and other PCs is defined in excruciating detail. Still other systems might have different areas represented with pretty balanced levels of mechanical detail.

As long as everything (or at least, every major thing) that can conceptually differentiate one character from another can also mechanically differentiate one character from another, the system enables roleplay. Of course, how much detail is needed in any given area (what counts as "major" differences) is a matter of personal taste. Not everybody needs a representation of the difference between "naturally suave" and "trained in diplomacy", just like not everybody needs a mechanical differentiation between three different types of curved swords (cutlass, katana, scimitar). That's all taste.

Roleplaying just means that whatever is defined is being portrayed.

I'd go beyond that, at least on the personality side. Regardless of what parts of the personality are mechanically defined, you should be aiming for a portrayal of a personality that's roughly as consistent as real life people are. Parts of personality that aren't mechanically defined still don't have free rein to change wildly from moment to moment.

In fact, I would say that even without any mechanical representation of personality, roleplaying is still enabled. And still requires consistent portrayal of the character.

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

Well, I'm not saying that in order for roleplay to be enabled, the production of your character's parameters have to be the result of a step-by-step process in the rulebook.

If part of how you defined your character was by asking yourself a series of questions (like "What would you do anything to protect?", etc), it doesn't matter whether that list of questions was in the Character Creation chapter of the book, listed on the preprinted character sheet, or scribbled on a piece of paper you keep in your wallet for whenever you make a character for any system. The point is that you ended up with some defined parameters, and roleplaying means playing to those parameters.

At least, that's all that matters to my definition of "roleplaying". How much of the parameter-determination has to come from the players' own initiative might say something of the quality of the system, but that's a different topic. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:

Well, I'm not saying that in order for roleplay to be enabled, the production of your character's parameters have to be the result of a step-by-step process in the rulebook.

If part of how you defined your character was by asking yourself a series of questions (like "What would you do anything to protect?", etc), it doesn't matter whether that list of questions was in the Character Creation chapter of the book, listed on the preprinted character sheet, or scribbled on a piece of paper you keep in your wallet for whenever you make a character for any system. The point is that you ended up with some defined parameters, and roleplaying means playing to those parameters.

At least, that's all that matters to my definition of "roleplaying". How much of the parameter-determination has to come from the players' own initiative might say something of the quality of the system, but that's a different topic. ;)

Fair enough.

Most of mine never actually get written down and develop out a vague idea I start with and trying to be consistent with previous actions in play.
I generally prefer that, so usually consider systems that don't force much to be higher quality. :)


thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

I think the hobby needs a new term, as there are two things occupying the space of the word "roleplaying". For one, there is the game as a whole "roleplaying game". That means that the game itself is roleplaying, so engaging in the game (which is defined by that game) is roleplaying, because it's a roleplaying game.

Then people use "roleplaying" to define actions taken within the fiction as viewed from the lens of the character taking actions. This is sometimes defined more narrowly as dialogue by some people during arguments, or dialogue is used as the most compelling example.

The problem is using the same term for these two things is contradictory. If the game is a "roleplaying game" and that game requires you to choose special abilities, then the act of choosing said abilities is playing the "roleplaying game", which means you are roleplaying. The second definition of the term excludes this definition though (though the first definition is more inclusive).

So, to make the discussion more clear, we should either rename the types of games, or use a different term when discussing the portrayal of characters through actions and words.

Cause honestly, to me the answer to "what is roleplaying?" in terms of this hobby, would be "playing a roleplaying game."

I think that distinction is obvious and pretty clearly understood, inside the hobby at least.

A "roleplaying" game is a game designed for "roleplaying". Not all of the game are equally roleplaying and you can roleplay when doing other things than roleplaying games. This is confusing, but that's not unusual for English and is almost always clear from context. None of the debate in this thread (or other discussions about this, as far as I recall) is driven by confusion on this point.
It's all about what that second definition actually means.

Actually, the thread is exactly about that confusion. Look at the first two questions in the OP. Is choosing your character's abilities roleplaying? It's part of the game, which is a roleplaying game.

If a game defines itself as roleplaying, then engaging in the game is in fact roleplaying, which includes things like choosing which feat to take next.

The entire "roleplay vs rollplay" idea is a different way of framing the debate.

The debate is exceptionally common, it just isn't framed the way I've framed it. I consider my framing to be useful, as it highlights where the clunky nature of written language is getting in the way of our understanding of these concepts, though this could be improved by altering the language we use to allow us to be more precise in our terminology.

I agree with you, that generally the context within a post is understood. I think you vastly undervalue the inherent muddiness of these discussions though because of the presence of the same word in these two contexts.

If one of the two terms were changed, a significant quantity of threads on these boards alone would have their nature changed a great deal. It would also improve our ability to discuss and understand the games and behaviors within them.

Imprecise language is the enemy of clarity and understanding.


@Jiggy:

Your definition seems overly prescriptive. I've created characters before that ended up behaving very differently at the table than the character I'd imagined, but none of the players in those games would argue that I wasn't roleplaying well. Sometimes, I was integrating bad rolls into my character's story. Other times, I was adjusting the character to fit in with the group. Still other times, I realized that something on the sheet just wasn't that interesting in practice.

As far as I'm concerned, if you're the creator of the character, whatever you do at the table "counts" more than anything on the sheet. Playing a pregen might be different, I suppose, but if the character comes from my head, and I'm consistent with my portrayal of that character from session to session, I would argue that I'm roleplaying as well as someone who hews to the sheet. I'm roleplaying differently, sure, but not badly. The sheet has a character concept on it, but the character only comes to life in play.

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

Ffordesoon wrote:
Sometimes, I was integrating bad rolls into my character's story.

Okay, so your character's bad rolls helped define the parameters of the character, and you portrayed him accordingly. That seems completely in line with what I've said.

Quote:
Other times, I was adjusting the character to fit in with the group.

Okay, so you changed the parameters of the character and then portrayed him according to those parameters. Seems completely in line with what I've said.

Quote:
Still other times, I realized that something on the sheet just wasn't that interesting in practice.

Okay, so you changed the parameters of the character and then portrayed him according to those parameters. Seems completely in line with what I've said.

Quote:
As far as I'm concerned, if you're the creator of the character, whatever you do at the table "counts" more than anything on the sheet.

Agreed. So if there's an incongruence, why not just change the sheet?

Quote:
...if the character comes from my head, and I'm consistent with my portrayal of that character from session to session, I would argue that I'm roleplaying as well as someone who hews to the sheet. I'm roleplaying differently, sure, but not badly.

If your character has such a high bonus at X skill that he auto-succeeds all but the hardest tasks, but in your head he's really bad at X skill and you consistently portray him as such, then you're simply incorrect about your character; the one you're portraying and the one you're using to resolve game functions are two different characters, and therefore you're not roleplaying.

So if you're dead-set on portraying the guy in your head, why'd you put something else on your sheet in the first place?

Quote:
The sheet has a character concept on it, but the character only comes to life in play.

This is a true sentence, but an incomplete idea. In any RPG that uses rolls/checks to resolve the outcome of actions (and allows different characters to have different odds of success at those rolls/checks), the stats are part of the definition of the character.

A character cannot be simultaneously good and bad at the same skill. To have him represented one way in one place and the opposite in another place is nonsense.

If you wrote a book, and a character repeatedly had scenes where he catches all the falling china or balances on tightropes without breaking a sweat, yet other characters and even the narrator identified him as a klutz despite the witnessing of these events, you'd be laughed out of the publisher's office (and rightfully so).

I maintain that roleplay means every representation of the character (both personal and written) is consistent. Portraying two different characters in two different places yet pretending they're the same character is utter nonsense.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here's an interesting thought exercise:

The GM says that an angry mage-hunter points his sword at your character and asks if he's a spellcaster. You declare that your character answers "no". Do you need to make a Bluff check? Why or why not?


Personally, I find it hard to believe that there is, or ever has been, a meaningful distinction between the concepts of roleplaying and rollplaying.

Putting aside that the latter term usually carries a negative connotation, the two are just flowery ways to say that one is playing the game.

Is it harder to RP in something like, say, Exalted, where even the social system is fairly complex and structured versus something like Dungeon World or FATE where, by comparison, the mechanics are fairly arbitrary?


Jiggy wrote:
Ffordesoon wrote:
Sometimes, I was integrating bad rolls into my character's story.

Okay, so your character's bad rolls helped define the parameters of the character, and you portrayed him accordingly. That seems completely in line with what I've said.

Quote:
Other times, I was adjusting the character to fit in with the group.

Okay, so you changed the parameters of the character and then portrayed him according to those parameters. Seems completely in line with what I've said.

Quote:
Still other times, I realized that something on the sheet just wasn't that interesting in practice.

Okay, so you changed the parameters of the character and then portrayed him according to those parameters. Seems completely in line with what I've said.

Quote:
As far as I'm concerned, if you're the creator of the character, whatever you do at the table "counts" more than anything on the sheet.

Agreed. So if there's an incongruence, why not just change the sheet?

Quote:
...if the character comes from my head, and I'm consistent with my portrayal of that character from session to session, I would argue that I'm roleplaying as well as someone who hews to the sheet. I'm roleplaying differently, sure, but not badly.

If your character has such a high bonus at X skill that he auto-succeeds all but the hardest tasks, but in your head he's really bad at X skill and you consistently portray him as such, then you're simply incorrect about your character; the one you're portraying and the one you're using to resolve game functions are two different characters, and therefore you're not roleplaying.

So if you're dead-set on portraying the guy in your head, why'd you put something else on your sheet in the first place?

Quote:
The sheet has a character concept on it, but the character only comes to life in play.
This is a true sentence, but an incomplete idea. In any RPG that uses rolls/checks to resolve the outcome of actions (and allows different...

I think your emphasis on the sheet is what confuses people. There's a tendency to think of the sheet as something set in stone (except for mechanical increases with experience) and thus the process being "Write on sheet and then stick to it, unless there's a mechanical or other strong reason for change."

Which is generally true for the capability side and sometimes for the mechanically expressed personality side, but much less so for background personality notes and the like.

And you're falling back to "not playing your character the way the mechanics make him" which is a very reductive example and what tripped me up originally. As I said, the mechanics tend to enforce that and it's not nearly as common a roleplaying problem as inconsistent personalities are, at least in my experience.

As an aside, though a relevant one: I've played characters where the mechanical representation didn't match the actual mechanical outcomes. A string of bad dice luck on rarely used binary success/failure abilities can easily lead to a character who's built to be good at something, played as such, but fails whenever he actually tries it - at least long enough to establish a pattern and a reputation.
Change the narrative portrayal and now you're not matching what's likely to happen in the long run.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:

Here's an interesting thought exercise:

The GM says that an angry mage-hunter points his sword at your character and asks if he's a spellcaster. You declare that your character answers "no". Do you need to make a Bluff check? Why or why not?

Assuming I'm playing PF, yes, if the character's a spellcaster, because he's lying. No if he isn't, because he isn't lying.

Possibly some edge cases where the character mechanically casts spells, but has refluffed things so that he doesn't think of them that way, though that's iffy, since even in world they'd still be identifiable as spells to anyone watching, barring feats or other abilities to mask that.

Not actually sure what the interesting part of this is or how it's relevant.


Quote:
The GM says that an angry mage-hunter points his sword at your character and asks if he's a spellcaster. You declare that your character answers "no". Do you need to make a Bluff check? Why or why not?

No, I doubt the inclusion of Bluff was intended to limit ones ability to play their character however they wish.

There is a caveat to that, however, in that if you don't have a Bluff roll then the witch-hunter/GM has no obligation whatsoever to give any real thought to your lie and can dismiss it with equal lack of effort. Bluff and Sense Motive are just measuring sticks meant only ever to be compared to one another.


Jiggy wrote:

Here's an interesting thought exercise:

The GM says that an angry mage-hunter points his sword at your character and asks if he's a spellcaster. You declare that your character answers "no". Do you need to make a Bluff check? Why or why not?

I love this question, the replies not so much, because here's my answer.

Does the GM Ask for a Bluff Check? because if he does, then you do. And this would be interesting if you were role playing a character who is not a spell caster, never presented herself as a spell caster, and is honestly certain that there is no way she would be taken for a spell caster.

In this situation the DM adds tension (since she is in charge of the NPC she could already have decide that the NPC does not believe you, no matter what, or maybe she decided that the NPC will not believe you unless you roll a good Bluff, or maybe the roll is meaningless to the DM but is made just to create tension, so the NPC knows you are not a spell caster and is merely sizing you up - this could go so many ways and could really depend on how you have been role playing your character.

I once saw a rogue with the UMD skill that role played as if he was a Wizard, even when enough evidence was presented against him to call him on his lies, he would not back down.


Its making a character as mechanically bad as possible and insisting that anyone who doesn't do the same is doing it wrong.

*ow ow ow kidding ow ow ow*

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

thejeff wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

Here's an interesting thought exercise:

The GM says that an angry mage-hunter points his sword at your character and asks if he's a spellcaster. You declare that your character answers "no". Do you need to make a Bluff check? Why or why not?

Assuming I'm playing PF, yes, if the character's a spellcaster, because he's lying. No if he isn't, because he isn't lying.

...

Not actually sure what the interesting part of this is or how it's relevant.

How do we know if he's a spellcaster?

According to Ffordesoon, whatever the player has been consistently portraying the character as will take precedence over the character sheet. So even if the character sheet says "wizard", if the player's been consistently portraying the character as a non-spellcaster, there's no bluff. (Or vice-versa.) Obviously this is ridiculous. The things on the sheet are part of what defines the reality of the character: if you've selected the game elements that give you the ability to cast spells, then you have the ability to cast spells, no matter what you picture in your head.

thejeff wrote:
I think your emphasis on the sheet is what confuses people.

I think it's more that for some people, seeing the sheet put on equal terms with other things is such a contrast/shock to how they're used to thinking of things that they misinterpret "integration of the sheet" as "emphasis on the sheet".

I've been saying this whole "the stats and the acting should synch up" thing for a while now, and every time, one or more people think I'm saying it's all about the stats and everything else is a slave to them.

Sometimes they eventually absorb my message of integration, sometimes not. /shrug

Quote:
There's a tendency to think of the sheet as something set in stone

I've always felt that if it turns out something different than you first wrote down would be more fun to play, you should change it. For me personally, I'd rather have a brief "blip" of retconning a character's stats than to either (A) force the player to roleplay a character they don't enjoy or (B) have a constant narrative disconnect between the checks the fiction writes and the checks the fiction cashes.

Quote:
And you're falling back to "not playing your character the way the mechanics make him" which is a very reductive example and what tripped me up originally. As I said, the mechanics tend to enforce that and it's not nearly as common a roleplaying problem as inconsistent personalities are, at least in my experience.

I'm curious whether a system with nebulous and undefined capabilities but clearly delineated personality might flip that around.

Quote:

As an aside, though a relevant one: I've played characters where the mechanical representation didn't match the actual mechanical outcomes. A string of bad dice luck on rarely used binary success/failure abilities can easily lead to a character who's built to be good at something, played as such, but fails whenever he actually tries it - at least long enough to establish a pattern and a reputation.

Change the narrative portrayal and now you're not matching what's likely to happen in the long run.

Yeah, that's annoying. RPG design should include some thought toward minimizing that possibility. EDIT: And GMing. Some GMs seem to think that DCs should scale at whatever rate necessary for PCs to consistently have the same 50%-ish odds of success no matter how much (or how little) they invest in the skill, and that has a high likelihood of producing the scenario you're talking about.


Jiggy wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

Here's an interesting thought exercise:

The GM says that an angry mage-hunter points his sword at your character and asks if he's a spellcaster. You declare that your character answers "no". Do you need to make a Bluff check? Why or why not?

Assuming I'm playing PF, yes, if the character's a spellcaster, because he's lying. No if he isn't, because he isn't lying.

...

Not actually sure what the interesting part of this is or how it's relevant.

How do we know if he's a spellcaster?

According to Ffordesoon, whatever the player has been consistently portraying the character as will take precedence over the character sheet. So even if the character sheet says "wizard", if the player's been consistently portraying the character as a non-spellcaster, there's no bluff. (Or vice-versa.) Obviously this is ridiculous. The things on the sheet are part of what defines the reality of the character: if you've selected the game elements that give you the ability to cast spells, then you have the ability to cast spells, no matter what you picture in your head.

I don't want to speak for him, but I'm pretty sure that's not what he meant. It's certainly not how I read his post.

Jiggy wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I think your emphasis on the sheet is what confuses people.

I think it's more that for some people, seeing the sheet put on equal terms with other things is such a contrast/shock to how they're used to thinking of things that they misinterpret "integration of the sheet" as "emphasis on the sheet".

I've been saying this whole "the stats and the acting should synch up" thing for a while now, and every time, one or more people think I'm saying it's all about the stats and everything else is a slave to them.

Sometimes they eventually absorb my message of integration, sometimes not. /shrug

I suspect it's more that they think the sheet is just the stats, the capabilities as you put it and don't even really consider not portraying those, since it's often a largely mechanical process. I know that's how I originally misunderstood you.

("Just the stats" may be strong there, but overwhelmingly the stats at least. Especially in games like PF, where you've basically got alignment and maybe a couple of traits.)

Jiggy wrote:
I'm curious whether a system with nebulous and undefined capabilities but clearly delineated personality might flip that around.

It might, but I suspect I'd hate it.

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

thejeff wrote:
I don't want to speak for him, but I'm pretty sure that's not what he meant. It's certainly not how I read his post.

It's what the belief he described in his post produces. If there was a miscommunication, I hope he'll try to clear it up. :)

Quote:
I suspect it's more that they think the sheet is just the stats, the capabilities as you put it and don't even really consider not portraying those, since it's often a largely mechanical process.

I've seen plenty of people assert that RPGs are split into "mechanics" (meaning everything covered by the rules, such as stats and numbers) and "roleplay" (meaning diceless, first-person speech) and then further assert that the latter is not only 100% independent of the former, but also somehow superior. :/


Jiggy wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I don't want to speak for him, but I'm pretty sure that's not what he meant. It's certainly not how I read his post.

It's what the belief he described in his post produces. If there was a miscommunication, I hope he'll try to clear it up. :)

Quote:
I suspect it's more that they think the sheet is just the stats, the capabilities as you put it and don't even really consider not portraying those, since it's often a largely mechanical process.
I've seen plenty of people assert that RPGs are split into "mechanics" (meaning everything covered by the rules, such as stats and numbers) and "roleplay" (meaning diceless, first-person speech) and then further assert that the latter is not only 100% independent of the former, but also somehow superior. :/

Again, it's not how I read his post. It may be the reductio ad absurdum version of it, but I'm about 90% sure it's not what he meant. I'd agree with his post and it's not at all what I would mean.

I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone assert what you claim, though I've seen less extreme versions that might be mistaken for it, if you squint really hard.
I prefer an emphasis on roleplaying over rollplaying myself, though I don't define them that way or consider them 100% independent.

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

I've seen things like,
"Sometimes we don't touch the dice for the whole session, instead just spending the night on roleplay"
or
"I like to optimize my characters so we can end combat as fast as possible and get back to the roleplaying"
or
"This module/scenario has so much combat and so many skill checks there's hardly any time left for roleplay"
or
"Every table needs to decide for themselves how much time to spend on dice and mechanics, and how much time to spend roleplaying".

The list goes on. Very few people will simply state "roleplaying and mechanics are completely separate", but everyone who references roleplay and mechanics competing for limited time is demonstrably operating under that belief. If they believed that roleplay was something that can involve the mechanics, they wouldn't be talking about choosing which to spend their time on.

Sovereign Court

Roll-playing vs Role-playing seems to often be a thing promoted by people that are really bad at the mechanics of a system and want to claim that being bad at mechanics makes them inherently better roleplayers.

But to me - that feels like an athlete who is 4th string and never gets put in a game claiming that that makes him better at cheering on his teammates.

In both cases - the two skills are entirely mutually exclusive. Any implied inverse relationship is false.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Roleplaying is "Let's Pretend" with Rules.


@Jiggy:

You're arguing against a straw Ffordesoon, I'm afraid. Which is fair enough, as I seem to have argued against a straw Jiggy.

I'm not saying the character sheet is unimportant. It is, vitally so. I wholeheartedly agree that if I've got a +12 to Stealth, I'm not roleplaying well if I waltz into every encounter banging a miniature gong (unless I'm roleplaying a moron who gets PCs killed, anyway - and with some character concepts, it's wise to tamp down the method acting a smidge, lest the other players conveniently forget that you're mortal).

No, my point was that unless you're playing an explicitly narrativist game like Apocalypse World or Feng Shui, there is often a measurable distinction between the character in the backstory you wrote before the game (which, as thejeff correctly surmised, was the only part of the sheet I was talking about) and the character you play at the table. If my backstory says I'm fighting to avenge the murder of my parents, and the group dynamic is such that an angsty backstory like that doesn't feel right at the table, I'm going to ignore the backstory I wrote and play the character differently.

After the session, sure, I'll rewrite the backstory. But what I thought you were arguing is that you always and forever must play the character on the sheet or you're having badwrongfun, which seemed, well, mildly insane to me. If you're okay with the sheet itself being mutable, I have no issue with anything you've said.

Well, I suppose I will beg to differ slightly on the subject of "crunch" versus "fluff." While I agree that the dichotomy is false and somewhat problematic, I would argue that segregating the two can occasionally be useful on a purely semantic level even if you know the distinction is false.


ngc7293 wrote:

Roleplaying is "Let's Pretend" with Rules.

I'd refine that to: A Roleplaying game is "Let's Pretend" with Rules.

Some systems emphasize the mechanics more than the pretending aspect. Some really work well with the pretending aspect and don't work well with something like combat, where mechanics can really help.


Is it possible to play a "Role Playing Game" and do no Role Play?

Is it possible to "Role Play" without playing a Role Playing Game?

(These are not meant to be serious questions)

Obviously people engage in Role Play all the time, but is it a Game?

Sometimes it is, sometimes it is not, sometimes it is and it is not.

If you are playing a tactical miniature skirmish game (Your Marines versus your wife's Space Elves) and in the middle of round three one of your figures (the guy carrying the plasma rifle) takes a hit and fails his armor save and you shout out,

"Fritz! Fritz, get up for God's sake! Get up! They've killed Fritz! They've killed Fritz! Those lousy stinking yellow fairies! Those horrible atrocity-filled vermin! Those despicable animal warmongers! They've killed Fritz! Take that! Take this! Take that, you green slime! You black hearted, short, bow-legged..."

Are you now actually playing a role-playing game?

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

Ffordesoon wrote:
But what I thought you were arguing is that you always and forever must play the character on the sheet or you're having badwrongfun

Nah, I was saying that if the acting and the sheet don't agree, you're not roleplaying. Interesting that "not roleplaying" got translated into "having badwrongfun". ;)

Quote:
If you're okay with the sheet itself being mutable, I have no issue with anything you've said.

Totally; change whatever piece of the equation needs to change. It's all equal. :)


Role playing vs Roll playing

Do I play this song with the black keys or the white ones?

1 to 50 of 138 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / What is Role-Playing? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.