Roleplaying means playing a role.
There are (at least) two things this could mean.
It could mean filling a role that is defined by functions, capacities, responsibilities, etc. (Being a firefighter is a different role from being a librarian.)
It could mean performing (in the theatrical sense) a role that is defined by personality, motivation, etc. (Playing Hamlet is a different role from playing Sherlock Holmes.)
I think Gygax had the first of these in mind, with class being the basic consideration in establishing those functions etc: on p 18 of his PHB he says
But the first can bleed into the second - a functional role might also suggest a certain sort of personality or at least basic set of motivations/behaviours: on p 86 of his DMG, Gygax invites us to "Consider the natural functions of each class of character", and then goes on to give examples of what he thinks poor roleplaying looks like:
This is mostly about function but includes elements of personality.
Gygax also suggests that there is a "general" role that all PCs should be adopting, when he describes as poorly played those " 'cautious' characters who do not pull their own weight". This also connotes a certain range of PC personalities as being part of good roleplaying.
Gygax also saw alignment as one element of playing a role in the game, and alignment connects at least in part to personality (eg CE characters are more bloodthirsty than NG ones).
I think the idea that roleplaying is more about character personality than character function comes to the fore in the 2nd ed AD&D PHB:
The idea that playing a role means performing a certain function has been replaced by the idea that roleplaying means being interesting, entertaining and "fun" in the depiction of the character at the table. This is reinforced by the book going on to describe classes as "occupations" and "archetypes" rather than demarcating approaches to meeting the challenges of the game, which is how Gygax described them.
How do you think of roleplaying? As function? Or as depiction of a character's personality. Post. Or fill in the poll.
There are (at least) two things this could mean.
It could mean filling a role that is defined by functions, capacities, responsibilities, etc. (Being a firefighter is a different role from being a librarian.)
It could mean performing (in the theatrical sense) a role that is defined by personality, motivation, etc. (Playing Hamlet is a different role from playing Sherlock Holmes.)
I think Gygax had the first of these in mind, with class being the basic consideration in establishing those functions etc: on p 18 of his PHB he says
The approach you wish to take to the game, how you believe you can most successfully meet the challenges which it poses, and which role you desire to play are dictated by character class
But the first can bleed into the second - a functional role might also suggest a certain sort of personality or at least basic set of motivations/behaviours: on p 86 of his DMG, Gygax invites us to "Consider the natural functions of each class of character", and then goes on to give examples of what he thinks poor roleplaying looks like:
Clerics who refuse to help and heal or do not remain faithful to their deity, fighters who hang bock from combat or attempt to steal, or fail to boldly lead, magic-users who seek to engage in melee or ignore magic items they could employ in crucial situations, thieves who boldly engage in frontal attacks or refrain from acquisition of an extra bit of treasure when the opportunity presents itself
This is mostly about function but includes elements of personality.
Gygax also suggests that there is a "general" role that all PCs should be adopting, when he describes as poorly played those " 'cautious' characters who do not pull their own weight". This also connotes a certain range of PC personalities as being part of good roleplaying.
Gygax also saw alignment as one element of playing a role in the game, and alignment connects at least in part to personality (eg CE characters are more bloodthirsty than NG ones).
I think the idea that roleplaying is more about character personality than character function comes to the fore in the 2nd ed AD&D PHB:
t is possible to turn . . . "disappointing" stats into a character who is both interesting and fun to play. Too often players become obsessed with "good" stats. These players immediately give up on a character if he doesn't have a majority of above-average scores. . . .
In truth, [a PC's] survivability has a lot less to do with his ability scores than with your desire to role-play him. If you give up on him, of course he won't survive! But if you take an interest in the character and role-play him well, then even a character with the lowest possible scores can present a fun, challenging, and all-around exciting time. . . .
Don't give up on a character just because he has a low score. Instead, view it as an opportunity to role-play, to create a unique and entertaining personality in the game. Not only will you have fun creating that personality, but other players and the DM will have fun reacting to him.
In truth, [a PC's] survivability has a lot less to do with his ability scores than with your desire to role-play him. If you give up on him, of course he won't survive! But if you take an interest in the character and role-play him well, then even a character with the lowest possible scores can present a fun, challenging, and all-around exciting time. . . .
Don't give up on a character just because he has a low score. Instead, view it as an opportunity to role-play, to create a unique and entertaining personality in the game. Not only will you have fun creating that personality, but other players and the DM will have fun reacting to him.
The idea that playing a role means performing a certain function has been replaced by the idea that roleplaying means being interesting, entertaining and "fun" in the depiction of the character at the table. This is reinforced by the book going on to describe classes as "occupations" and "archetypes" rather than demarcating approaches to meeting the challenges of the game, which is how Gygax described them.
How do you think of roleplaying? As function? Or as depiction of a character's personality. Post. Or fill in the poll.