D&D 5E What is the "role" in roleplaying

[I'm A Banana]

I think if you've had a meaningful effect on the fiction, you've found a function.

Pretty broad definition of function, but sure, I can follow your train of thought there!

Outcomes matters. They're what make it a game. If you are setting up situations that take the ability of the players to improve their odds of having a good outcome through their character design choices, then that's poor design.

The idea that outcomes is what defines something as a game is not an uncontested assertion. Like, I've got a lot of D&D characters whose campaigns have petered off into nothingness and so who have and will never have a proper outcome, good or bad.

And I'd certainly assert that getting a better chance of a good outcome isn't something that makes my D&D games enjoyable experiences. I mean, you know, wild sorcerers are a thing, there's always information asymmetry, often there's "no-win" situations where both good and bad consequences result, having assured success is dull, etc., etc.,

 

[Jester David]

You do realize that's exactly what you're doing by staking out the personality-alone-is-RP position?

Not really.

The OP had their opinion, tried to find evidence to support it, and then posted their definition.

I had my opinion, started to post it, and then revised my opinion based on recent game experiences. I rejected my initial thoughts and revised my definition.
Then, after posting, I continued to research and found additional information that also conformed and supported my revised definition.

I'm trying not to base my opinion or definition on personal preferences but finding one that actually defines the game (read: roleplaying) in a way that doesn't equally apply to sports and board games.

 

[Sunseeker]

Outcomes matters. They're what make it a game. If you are setting up situations that take the ability of the players to improve their odds of having a good outcome through their character design choices, then that's poor design.

I'm not sure I'm getting what you're trying to say here. That situations wherein players improving their odds of success depends on "correct" character design choices, like having a certain skill set, is poor design, or situations wherein players improving their odds of success depend on "correct" character design choices, is poor design.

Could you clarify?

 

[seebs]

The historical sense of the term in the context of "roleplaying games" is absolutely tied to the word "roleplaying" in other contexts, like "roleplaying" in therapy, and that is 100% about "pretend to be another person to some extent", and 0% about "fulfill a functional role in a thing".

 

[Tony Vargas]

The historical sense of the term in the context of "roleplaying games" is absolutely tied to the word "roleplaying" in other contexts,

It's certainly been conflated with unrelated meanings by folks in the mainstream.

 

[Faenor]

I'm not sure I'm getting what you're trying to say here. That situations wherein players improving their odds of success depends on "correct" character design choices, like having a certain skill set, is poor design, or situations wherein players improving their odds of success depend on "correct" character design choices, is poor design.

Could you clarify?

When a dm sets up a situation where the players' character generation and customization choices can't be utilized to improve the outcome, it's poor design. The design being the dm's design, not the rules design. The chosen options would be used in different ways. Different design choices would be used in different ways. Combat optimized would charge in and hit hard and fast, stealth optimized sneak attack, etc. But it's when it's a flip of the coin no matter that it's a problem. Like if you have a maze that you just choose left and right until you accidentally find the exit.

 

[Faenor]

And also it's ok, even good, to present the players with situations their design choices are suboptimal for. A group of paladins with a wizard and a life cleric dropped in the woods. Humans in the underdark, etc.

 

[Lehrbuch]

But, by that definition of "role", hockey and football (both types) are role-playing games.

By "both types" I assume that you mean union and league?

 

[Jester David]

By "both types" I assume that you mean union and league?

No. Arsenal and Chelsea. Because what else matters?

 

[Jester David]

It's certainly been conflated with unrelated meanings by folks in the mainstream.

Well...the Online Entymology Dictionary traces the origin of role-play to 1958.
roleplay (n.) also role-play, 1958; from role (n.) + play (v.). As a verb by 1961. Related: Role-playing

That's 16 years before D&D was a glimmer in Arneson & Gygax's eye. So, really, we're the ones conflating/ co-opting the term. Most other usages of role-playing came first. (Which is likely why one of Arneson's players came up with the term "roleplay game".)

With "role" in that context being being:
role (n.) "part or character one takes," c. 1600, from French rôle "part played by a person in life," literally "roll (of paper) on which an actor's part is written," from Old French rolle (see roll (n.)). Meaning "function performed characteristically by someone" is from 1875. In the social psychology sense from 1913. Role model first attested 1957.

Role-playing is literally "part played by a person" + "to take part in a game" OR "part played by a person" + "dramatic performance"

Ironically, it means "roll-play" is equally accurate, with "roll" actually being a roll of paper rather than the roll of the dice.