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

[pemerton]

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.

In his PHB, Gygax defined the role the player takes on by reference primarily to character class, and secondarily in terms of alignment.

Generalising from that, I think of the role as the methods, resources and relevant considerations that a player brings to bear in their play of the game.

That definitely can include a character's personality or convictions, depending on the details of the game being played.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, the "there's no real difference" premise only makes sense if you don't believe in firewalling at all, and if that's your position it is, but I wouldn't wait around for too many people to agree with it.

 

[pemerton]

Yeah, the "there's no real difference" premise only makes sense if you don't believe in firewalling at all, and if that's your position it is, but I wouldn't wait around for too many people to agree with it.

What's the there's no real difference premise?

And what's being firewalled from what?

 

[GMMichael]

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.

I do what my character would do. That's role-playing. If I'm a PC, I'll at least play a character who's interesting to me, even if we don't agree on everything.

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.

Wait a minute. I think you just cleared up SO many things for me here...

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.

If you wrap the racism and sexism together, you have Mistreating Those Who Are Different. Otherism. An inherent desire to do that is beneficial for humans who don't want to be dominated by orcs, or for humans dominating orcs. (It works for the orcs, too.) I don't have much interest in playing someone who's a Jerk(ism), because that's not fun for everyone. Unless it's hilarious.

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.

Few people are experts, so give it a go.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I am entirely about playing the character. Game mechanics for me are there merely to give me answers to the questions and actions my character poses. I would never just play as myself, because I do that every time I play standard board games. If I'm playing Ticket To Ride I do not assume the role of the old-timey train people you find on the box, I am just me playing the game. But the "game" parts of roleplaying games are NEVER as interesting, tactically fulfilling or strategic as the thousands of better board games out there... so why would I ever want to play them as such? What a waste of time. Forsake (or minimize) the one thing RPGs have that regular board games do not (the playing of a role/character), to then play a markedly inferior game? No thank you.

And I do not believe I am alone in this way of thinking... because we have seen WotC attempt to turn the "game" parts of Dungeons & Dragons into their own separate board games that don't have the roleplaying... and no one talks about them or seemingly plays them anymore. When's the last time Wrath of Ashardalon has gotten any traction in the last 10+ years? It hasn't. Because D&D combat as a game is quite a bit worse than most other board games built and designed specifically to be of that type.

If I want to play a board game, I will play a good board game and not the "Dungeons & Dragons tactical miniatures combat game" part of D&D. But if I want to play a roleplaying game, then I'm going to focus on the part of D&D (or other RPGs) that are actually meaningful to it and that regular board games don't have... the roleplaying.

 

[pemerton]

I am entirely about playing the character. Game mechanics for me are there merely to give me answers to the questions and actions my character poses.

<snip>

But the "game" parts of roleplaying games are NEVER as interesting, tactically fulfilling or strategic as the thousands of better board games out there... so why would I ever want to play them as such? What a waste of time. Forsake (or minimize) the one thing RPGs have that regular board games do not (the playing of a role/character), to then play a markedly inferior game? No thank you.

<snip>

D&D combat as a game is quite a bit worse than most other board games built and designed specifically to be of that type.

If I want to play a board game, I will play a good board game and not the "Dungeons & Dragons tactical miniatures combat game" part of D&D.

As far as D&D is concerned, at least in it's classic form, the interesting part of the game-as-game is not the combat: it's the puzzle-solving (in the broadest sense of that phrase). This includes using equipment wisely, spell load-outs and spell use, unravelling the clues in the dungeon, etc. I'm thinking of scenarios like White Plume Mountain, Castle Amber etc. This is a type of game play that a board game can't deliver, because of the role of the GM both as "controller" of secret information and as "referee" of fictional positioning.

There's a lot of RPGing possible that is not classic D&D, but in which the idea of engaging the fiction - and hence non-boardgame adjudication - remains key. This sort of RPGing involves taking on a "role" - a character within the fictional situation - even if that character is mostly a player insert. This will work for a lot of CoC, RQ, RM, GURPS, etc.

 

[Thomas Shey]

What's the there's no real difference premise?

And what's being firewalled from what?

See post #5 from Emberrash. I think my statement will make more sense.

 

[bloodtide]

The role playing is most of the game for me. I love to role play a character in a fictional world.

And I always role play a character as the character, never as myself. I'm not a fan of the "just be yourself" in an RPG. I don't worry if my character is not 100% accurate to one or two other peoples narrow idea of what the character should be. Any character can be unique, no matter what "everyone" says that type of character "must be" or some reason.

And I never worry about being "correct" or "like everyone in 2024 thinks". Though, that "everyone" is really just a small group of people anyway.

 

[Theory of Games]

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.

First of all, tabletop role-playing is all about assuming the thoughts and actions of the character you are playing. You are not playing yourself. Unless playing yourself is a feature of the rpg like Villains and Vigilantes. This is the right answer based on decades of tabletop rpg designers explaining "What IS a role-playing game" in all their rpgs. The confusion comes from video games also using the term "rpg" but the role-play experience is very different from tabletop rpgs.

Also BECMI D&D isn't based on 'western liberal values'. Maybe you meant 5e but you'd be wrong about that being a liberal game as well. How?

 

[MGibster]

Also BECMI D&D isn't based on 'western liberal values'. Maybe you meant 5e but you'd be wrong about that being a liberal game as well. How?

Western liberalism is the idea of individual rights and things like freedom of speech, religion, rule of law, secularism, private property, freedom of association, etc., etc. It's liberal in the sense of how the word was used centuries ago rather than how it's used today. At least for as long as I've been playing D&D, I'd argue the good guys embrace rather modern western liberal ideals. (Again, as the word liberal was used long, long ago.)