What Part Does the Role Play in the Role-Playing Game?

[MGibster]

I'm going to go out on a limb and define role-playing as taking on a role and responding to situations as if you were that person. You could role-play as yourself, a 17th century samurai from Iga, a lone warrior from Cimmeria, or a stoic Vulcan serving as a security officer on a Federation starship even though your parents are so disappointed in your career choices. I don't know about anyone else who frequents these boards, but I don't have a lot of experience as a 17th century samurai and I imagine they viewed the world very differently from how I view it. But one of the things I enjoy about role-playing games is stepping into a role that's different from my own. Regardless of the setting, when you play a character do you try to take on a role that is different from who you are as a person? When that character deals with something in game do you do what the character would do or what you think should be done? There's no right answers here.

As with many things, for me it depends on the game. When I'm playing D&D, I don't give it a whole lot of thought because the game is designed for characters to have modern western liberal values. But when I play a character born in 1890 I'm not looking for someone with a completely modern 2024 attitude and belief system. Though I'll say right now I haven't got much interest in playing a character that's racist and sexist as was very much the standard in early 20th century America. And I have to acknowledge I'm not quite the expert on the points-of-view of everyone today let alone in our past or in a fantasy setting, so I'm not striving for realism or perfection here. I just like play something different from myself.

 

[Reynard]

I am not particularly interested in inhabiting a character when I am a player. I enjoy the Game part of the RPG most. That isn't to say that I am completely indifferent to the RP part, but it is of a secondary concern to me. And sure, there are moments where the game or the GM or the other players are so powerfully engaging that i, too, am drawn into a deep roleplaying experience, but it is rare. Most of the time, I merely enjoy making choices I think this imagined person might, but it isn't particularly personal.

 

[Emberashh]

The thing about narrative improv is that it doesn't really matter if you go into it and act from your character's perspective or from your own, because the two aren't really separate.

 

[MGibster]

I am not particularly interested in inhabiting a character when I am a player. I enjoy the Game part of the RPG most.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. People play these games for different reasons and I wouldn't say one of better than the other.

The thing about narrative improv is that it doesn't really matter if you go into it and act from your character's perspective or from your own, because the two aren't really separate.

Are they not? I played a game of Legend of the Five Rings where my character cracked down on a religious cult that wasn't really hurting anyone. Me personally? I'm a live and let live kind of guy. But this religion wasn't authorized by the government and it had to go.

 

[Emberashh]

Are they not? I played a game of Legend of the Five Rings where my character cracked down on a religious cult that wasn't really hurting anyone. Me personally? I'm a live and let live kind of guy. But this religion wasn't authorized by the government and it had to go.

That's still you though. When you're the one making the decision, your personality is being reflected in the choices of the character even if they're superficially contradictory; your willingness to differ to another person's preferences is a reflection of your personal capacity for empathy, among other things if we wanted to dig into it, and is the only reason your character ultimately makes that choice in the metacontext.

So even though if you acted as yourself you'd go a different direction, you were only ever going to go in the direction you actually did. This is just what it is to have a player driven experience, which is what narrative improv fundamentally is. And thus, so are all RPGs, even the ones you may not think so. (I'm using player in the improv context, rather than its colloquial sensel

This logic holds up even when we start introducing more explicit splits between player and character skill, and only falls out when you remove any kind of decision making whatsoever and leave everything your character does to pure random chance (or some other, similarly choiceless mechanism).

 

[Autumnal]

I’m very big on the roleplaying. It doesn’t shock or offend me that others aren’t, but it’s another reason I like solo gaming these days I can indulge my enthusiasm with getting in the way of other preferences.

 

[MGibster]

This logic holds up even when we start introducing more explicit splits between player and character skill, and only falls out when you remove any kind of decision making whatsoever and leave everything your character does to pure random chance (or some other, similarly choiceless mechanism).

I guess the logic holds up but I don't find it particularly useful. There's a little of me in whatever role I play. And?

 

[Emberashh]

I guess the logic holds up but I don't find it particularly useful. There's a little of me in whatever role I play. And?

Well of course not. We're getting into the weeds of overthinking the nature of game protagonists and how we as players factor into that. There's not much use dwelling on it unless we're trying to do everything we can to justify just doing story telling without admitting it.

In in all other cases, it just doesn't matter your intrinsic motivations to make one choice over another. You're the player, you drive the experience in whatever way it goes. The key from a design perspective is making the choices available interesting, and that holds true whether we're talking the most railroadey railroad or a pure sandbox.

 

[Autumnal]

@MGibster …and now here’s our Canadian correspondent, David Cronenberg, to explain some more about dividing, multiplying, and transmissible personalities….

 

[payn]

I tend to play either fantasy settings or sci-fi ones. So, acting correctly as an actual 17th century samurai isnt really a concern. Closest I have gotten to historical was Call of Cthulhu which has been mixed results. Folks tend to either overlook the historic -isms or play into them to an uncomfortable level. Have to say I prefer the former myself.

My style tends to lean heavy on setting and campaign. If the GM isnt putting effort into bringing the setting alive, im probably going to tune out. I love to engage faction play and seek out political intrigue. I want to see actions start as seeds of revolutions and/or for my character's deeds to leave their mark on the world. So, first and foremost, my role play enegry derives from encoutners, adventures, and the results.

The personality of my characters usually starts off an almost blank slate. I dont really do backstories, as im of the opinion my character's backstory is about to be written. So, I fully discover my character through play and the various situations they find themselves in. Imagine a brand new pair of boots. You are not sure exactly how they are going to feel at first. After time wearing them, they break in, and then you know exactly how they feel.

As for my general view of role playing im pretty open compared to some folks around here. Im not too worried about folks conforming to my method listed above. For example, I do think computer and board games can be RPGs. There is no litmus test to prove a person is doing RP correctly. I thnk the role play journey can be unique for all kinds of folks. I'd rather welcome more people to it then worry about them not doing it correctly. YMMV.