Creativity vs Imagination: At what point is it no longer "role playing"?

[MadLordOfMilk]

After having a conversation online with my friend, this question came up: at what point does "your character can do this, this, and this" go from a "useful tool" to no longer being roleplaying?

For the context, here's the conversation. It was originally about the complexities of RPG systems in general but there was a subject jump. This in particular ends up being about the flavor text of powers in D&D 4e...

Me: they're great once you get into them, but the learning curve seems utterly unnecessary

Other Person: maybe, but it does make it cooler, in some ways

Me: how so? besides the fun of crunching numbers to make an overpowered character, of course

Other Person: its easier. you have the cool items and powers written out. you dont ahve to make them up

Me: I don't get it (note: this was my tame equivalent of *facepalm*)

Other Person: in old eds, you had to role play verything. now, the cool things you do are told to you

Me: that, and the flavor text is as close to optional as it gets. you can make it whatever you want

Other Person: yeah. but it gives you helluva nice guideline

Me: well, yes, you can use it. it's nice. but your response was, effectively, "this system is great. I no longer have to think"

Other Person: well, yeah

Me: this, to me, is a problem

Other Person: then you're very unique

Me: how so?

Other Person: most people dont want to think

Me: well, see, an integral part of roleplaying is imagining things

Other Person: yeah. but imagining and being creative are not the same thing

Me: that's, actually.... an interesting point. at what point does "your character can do this, this, and this" go from a "useful tool" to no longer even being roleplaying? because, this is effectively the question your statement proposes

Other Person: undeniably. and i cant answer that

BTW, I formatted this way for the sake of readability, but it took up a bit more room than I would've liked... oh well.

 

[LostSoul]

Depends on how you define roleplaying.

Though I have to point out: 4E doesn't limit what your character can do; the DM does. If the DM doesn't buy into the page 42 love, then there isn't much else other than powers that a PC can do, but if the DM does, well, that's a different story.

 

[MadLordOfMilk]

In a way, I guess that is effectively what the question asks: "how do you define roleplaying?" I personally had a reflexive facepalm moment when I first read the responses, but when I thought about it, the point of "creativity and imagination are not the same thing" seemed a pretty strong argument.

As far as 4E goes, I totally agree Page 42 is brilliant. The idea was proposed by the person, not so much the game system. It's more of a question of play style than game system.

As a disclaimer, should someone misinterpret my post, I'm not taking a shot at 4e whatsoever, I love the game system and run it weekly. I like the flavor text of the powers, etc etc. I'm merely looking for a discussion that's of a more... I dunno, philosophical? nature.

 

[FireLance]

I think that the closer you get to your real-world experience being relevant in the game, the more "your character can do this, this, and this" stops being a tool and starts interfering with creativity (though not necessarily role-playing - depending on how you define "role-playing", of course ).

Consider, for a moment, one extreme end of the scale: a role-playing game where you play yourself in the real world. The game shouldn't be telling you what you can do, and a game that does probably constrains your creativity either directly (the game doesn't allow for the other options) or indirectly (you tend to focus on the explicitly stated options and ignore the other possibilities).

On the other hand, once the game goes into areas where your real-world experience simply does not apply (the use of magic in fantasy role-playing games, for example), the game ought to define what your character can do. Under such circumstances, the focus of creativity shifts from what you can do to how you use your defined abilities.

 

[LostSoul]

In a way, I guess that is effectively what the question asks: "how do you define roleplaying?"

Yeah, I hear you.

You are playing a "character" - not in the literary sense, but as a game token - and moving him through encounters that are all balanced so that he can win, given smart tactical play, and the only options he has are the powers listed on his character sheet. Is that roleplaying?

I would honestly say no.

I think that form of play is the dominant one in the hobby, though.

 

[hong]

Powers are like little prepackaged stunts that let you bust out the awesome on demand. They are so awesome that they give you an extra 1[w] or 2[w] damage as an awesomeness bonus.

 

[Ariosto]

Some people are not so good at getting "into a character's shoes" and dealing from that perspective with an imagined environment -- but may be pretty good at manipulating abstract rules and at making up a colorful narration after the fact.

We've got sort of a Reiner Knizia take on the D&D "theme" ... only much, much more complex and time-consuming!

 

[Runestar]

Let me first say that I am not entirely sure what the OP is trying to drive at, so do forgive me if my post is off-topic.

I would say that the rules are there exactly to put a lid on how "abusive" and "ridiculous" roleplaying can get. In the interest of "fairness", some aspects of gameplay should never be left to roleplaying alone to determine.

To give an example, lets say a 3ed party is currently fighting a dragon, who blasts them all with his breath weapon. The rogue makes his reflex save and manages to escape being hurt thanks to evasion. His achievement was made solely on merit of his superior stats.

In no way would I allow such an achievement to be merely roleplayed / narrated out without being backed up by the relevant stats/checks. In other words, it does not matter to me how elaborately or vividly you describe how your character might have reacted to the dragon's breath weapon and escaped harm. If you ultimately fail your reflex save or did not possess evasion or both, you are still going to take damage. You can however, describe in detail how your character tried to evade the breath but failed. In the end, what you narrate must fit in with the mechanical outcome.

But for the rogue who made his reflex save, he is certainly free to roleplay that aspect to his heart's content. He succeeded after all. In fact, I would allow him to escape damage even if he did not do any "roleplaying" at all (eg: he simply said, I roll a reflex save). Roleplaying is there to enhance your gaming experience, not to needlessly penalize those who don't as compared to those who do.

So basically, your stats delineate the boundaries within which you are free to roleplay. This is why I have always believed that roleplaying and rollplaying complement each other, rather than being mutually exclusive (or as some still stubbornly believe, that one must necessarily come at the expense of the other).

You can't roleplay if you are dead. And it is not the best roleplaying in the world which saves you from the dragon's breath weapon, but hard, cold stats. So if you want to roleplay properly, you had better first ensure that your character's stats are good enough to consistently succeed at the feats your flavour suggests he is capable of (eg: if your backstory is that of a master swordsman, then you better be very good at melee). The most beautifully roleplayed PC in a game would still be cannon-fodder if he is ultimately too weak to stand up to his foes.

I am not sure if it would be fun to play in a game with no stats, and it all boiled down to who was the best at trash-talking the other players. Everything would be so arbitrary, and no one would know where they stood.

 

[hong]

As long as you are committing acts of violence, angst and chewing scenery, you are roleplaying.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Having tactical options to use via the game engine does not always equal no roleplaying. You can go:

"I use my "Come and Get It!" Power."

or

"All right, you want to kill me? Well go ahead! Get up here and go for it! There's enough of me for everyone! COME AND GET IT!"