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

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The idea that playing a role means performing a certain function has been replaced by the idea that roleplaying means being interesting, entertaining and "fun" in the depiction of the character at the table.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.

Interesting question, but I honestly don't see any reason to choose one or the other. While playing a wide-eyed halfling ranger amazed at the wonders around her...I'm still going to bring the pain when needed, provide the party with valuable succor, and enter full-on homicidal psychosis whenever I see a goblinoid.

With a gun to my head, in the modern game I would say a table is damaged more by players who ignore their function, more so than by players who ignore their personality.

I view roleplaying as a function but of developing and achieving goals rather class role. Achieving goals is informed by personality, allegiances and world view (which may include some consideration of class function but could also include race or background). I see class role as more about developing/providing the tools and means to achieve these goals and overcoming obstacles to these goals - normally with some adventuring colleagues which have goals of their own...

I know that the game has changed over the decades. OD&D and 1E was much more about role as class. In a Dragon article, EGG even mocked players who attempted to insert personality into the game, suggesting they would be better off joining an acting troupe. 2E moved the game much more into the personality factor, and roleplaying changed. 3E was split IME, with many player more interested in "builds," which showed a focus on role as class, but most players still giving characters a personality. 4E was mostly the same as 3E in this regard. I feel that 5E is trying to get back more into role as personality with the implementation of Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws.

I chose the second, but there are aspects of both in a team game like D&D.

Generally speaking, successfully navigating a D&D adventure will require the capabilities of different specialists to be successful. What specialists may differ depending on party strategy and tactics, but a range is preferable to homogeneity. Older styles of game placed a larger premium on successfully fulfilling the functional role with pick-up parties, casual death, etc.

But all the games encouraged the second through the examples of play at a minimum and later with advice.

My gut reaction was that this was an absurd question whose answer was wonderfully self-evident. Since there are actually some votes that go the other way, I had to ponder it.

wedgeski said:

With a gun to my head, in the modern game I would say a table is damaged more by players who ignore their function, more so than by players who ignore their personality.

Click to expand...

I would say just the opposite. Focusing principally on the function, to the point of ignoring the personality, reduces the game to little more than a strategy game. Taken to an extreme, you may as well be playing a board game or minis skirmish game. The thing that sets the RPG category apart from other types of games is that it is well suited to the storytelling aspect.

D&D was born of miniatures war gaming. Take a basic medieval minis game. Then add in marquee heroes, like Aragorn and Legolas. Now, focus on those heroes as they delve into Moria -- without any faceless troops on one side. That's how we got D&D. That's also why the classes were so samey-samey -- it was a matter of what basic archetype you were playing.

I would say, however, that it didn't truly become a role playing game until the PC heroes started becoming memorable personas, in their own right.

Even if Gygax mocked overly-invested dramatists, it's clear that his group hammed it up quite a bit. I'm more than happy to mock folks (DMs or players) who think their games are works of timeless fiction or deep explorations of the human psyche. But.... I wouldn't actually want to be at a table where the players only focused on their function. I don't necessarily have a problem with games like that, but I wouldn't call it an RPG (regardless of system used).

To turn the scenario around, if the group spends an entire "adventure" in a town, with no combat, is it still a role playing game? Or, since they aren't fulfilling their functions, is it something other than role playing?

Sure, you can talk about out-of-combat roles, but those are pretty vague. Even then, what happens when the group doesn't "beat" the adventure? Did they do a bad job of role playing because no one played the face? Maybe the Fighter wasn't a good enough role player because he didn't do the math well enough to max out his GWF, which would have saved the party. What if everyone involved remembers the characters -- even the dead ones -- and talks about them for years to come? Did they role play well, despite "failing"? How about if the PCs looted the dungeon and killed the BBEG handily, due to good tactics, but no one can remember the characters' names or, in a couple months, whether James played a rogue or a ranger? Did they succeed at role playing or did they do a sub-par job?

If it isn't clear, I'd consider the group who created the memorable characters and years of conversations to have done a better job of role playing. YMMV, but that criteria seals the deal, for me, about what role is being played.

Mercule said:

To turn the scenario around, if the group spends an entire "adventure" in a town, with no combat, is it still a role playing game? Or, since they aren't fulfilling their functions, is it something other than role playing?

Click to expand...

A PC's "function" doesn't end out of combat. The game is built on multiple pillars. The OP is talking about "functions, capacities, responsibilities" vs. "personality, motivation", not simply function vs role-playing (roll vs. role).

A PC can navigate a town full of NPC's, gather the required information, explore story hooks, continue investigations, and all the other things PC's usually get up to, all in third person without a whit of personality or motivation. This might not, by some definitions, be as rich an experience as he could be having, but IMO it will have a less detrimental effect on the table than if he was the godless Cleric, the pacifist fighter, or any number of other cliches.

As I said in my post, I don't see any reason to choose function OR personality. The vast majority of games, I would think, are a mixture of both. But the more I think about it, the more I believe a player should be encouraged first to contribute healthily to the party's progress, and secondarily to the construction of his alter-ego and sympathy towards that character's motivations and personality.

How about if the PCs looted the dungeon and killed the BBEG handily, due to good tactics, but no one can remember the characters' names or, in a couple months, whether James played a rogue or a ranger? Did they succeed at role playing or did they do a sub-par job?

Click to expand...

You'd have to ask them!

*Deleted by user*

Nagol said:

all the games encouraged the second through the examples of play at a minimum and later with advice.

Click to expand...

I don't think there's very much personality or individual motivation in the examples of play in Gygax's DMG. (Either the combat between parties A and B; or the exploration of the lost crypt, with the less-than-evocatively named "leader", "cleric", etc.)

Modlvay's examples in his Basic rulebook have a bit more dramatic life in them, but not a lot more. (I seem to remember Morgan Ironwolf retracting a threat to kill a prisoner - have I got that right? - but in Gygaxian terms that is part of playing alignment within the party, rather than personalities per se - though as I noted in my OP alignment can bleed into personality.) The party's treatment of the death of the thief (Black Dougal?) is pretty functional.

Mercule said:

Focusing principally on the function, to the point of ignoring the personality, reduces the game to little more than a strategy game. Taken to an extreme, you may as well be playing a board game or minis skirmish game. The thing that sets the RPG category apart from other types of games is that it is well suited to the storytelling aspect.

D&D was born of miniatures war gaming. Take a basic medieval minis game. Then add in marquee heroes, like Aragorn and Legolas. Now, focus on those heroes as they delve into Moria -- without any faceless troops on one side. That's how we got D&D. That's also why the classes were so samey-samey -- it was a matter of what basic archetype you were playing.

I would say, however, that it didn't truly become a role playing game until the PC heroes started becoming memorable personas, in their own right.

Click to expand...

If you read Gygax's advice on preparing for an adventure, in the concluding pages of his PHB, it's pretty clear that he conceives of D&D as a strategy game.

The difference from a typical war or skirmish game, though, and even moreso from a board game, is that the fiction matters to the resolution. That's the truth in the otherwise slightly simplistic slogan "In a RPG you can try anything!"

Hence performing one's role/function isn't just about knowing the mechanics (though that's part of it - especially, in the history of D&D, if you're playing a spell user). It's also about having a good sense of the fiction and being able to put the fiction to work - whether via "creative casting", or clever negotiation (Gygax's DMG quantifies the effects of various offers, deals etc on reaction and loyalty checks), or avoiding pursuit, or other challenges that are thrown up by the game.

Mercule said:

Even if Gygax mocked overly-invested dramatists, it's clear that his group hammed it up quite a bit.

<snip>

I wouldn't actually want to be at a table where the players only focused on their function. I don't necessarily have a problem with games like that, but I wouldn't call it an RPG (regardless of system used).

Click to expand...

But, as I replied to Nagol, that is primarily what is going on in the examples of play in the classic game. That's also what seems to me to be going on in the example of play in the Introduction to the 5e Basic PDF, and to be what is evoked in the column on the right hand side of the same page:


To me that all looks like it's about function, not character personality or motivation (which seem to be subsumed into the idea of a GM creating an adventure with hazards and paths for the players to engage with) - though it doesn't have the same emphasis on "skilled play" as does Gygax's discussion.

That's not to say that there won't be "hamming it up", etc - but I think in the presentation of role as function the hamming it up is a result of roleplaying, not constitutive of it - you play your PC by way of action declarations aimed at meeting the challenges posed by the game, and in the course of doing that you ham up your PC because that's a more fun way to engage in action declarations.

Mercule said:

To turn the scenario around, if the group spends an entire "adventure" in a town, with no combat, is it still a role playing game? Or, since they aren't fulfilling their functions, is it something other than role playing?

Sure, you can talk about out-of-combat roles, but those are pretty vague.

Click to expand...

There is no assumption (by me, or in general) that function = combat function. In the examples from Gygax, for instance, there is reference to a thief's function of pilfering treasure, a cleric's function of helpfing, a fighter's function of boldly leading, etc. And the examples I've mentioned in the Basic PDF are about the "exploration" pillar, not the combat pillar.

Mercule said:

Even then, what happens when the group doesn't "beat" the adventure? Did they do a bad job of role playing because no one played the face? Maybe the Fighter wasn't a good enough role player because he didn't do the math well enough to max out his GWF, which would have saved the party. What if everyone involved remembers the characters -- even the dead ones -- and talks about them for years to come? Did they role play well, despite "failing"? How about if the PCs looted the dungeon and killed the BBEG handily, due to good tactics, but no one can remember the characters' names or, in a couple months, whether James played a rogue or a ranger? Did they succeed at role playing or did they do a sub-par job?

Click to expand...

There's an assumption here, though, that good functional play is not memorable. But in my experience it often is - and part of remembering it also involves remembering what the players' character did, and hence what/who s/he was. For instance, when you get people to post about memories of "creative casting", they don't forget the class of the character because, in remembering what the situation was and what the spell was that was used, they also remember the details of the character.

As to whether a party played badly if they didn't "beat" the adventure - doesn't that depend on the dynamics and expectations of play? If you're playing a Gygaxian dungeon, then failing to beat the dungeon (eg all the PCs get killed, or none gets enough treasure to earn a level, etc) is playing badly. If, along the lines suggseted by [MENTION=56051]Raith5[/MENTION] upthread, you see roleplaying as being about the player pursuing character goals, then failing to achieve those goals might be a sign of bad play.

Conversely, if you think that the main point of RPGing is to create an entertaining and fun personality - as per the quotes upthread from the 2nd ed PHB - then you probably think that "beating" the dungeon, or achieving goals, is irrelevant.

These different approaches are what I am hoping the thread can explore.

pemerton said:

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.)

Click to expand...

It is largely about functions. See for example the Thesaurus definition:

role ‎(plural roles)

- A character or part played by a performer or actor. "My neighbor was the lead role in last year's village play.‎" "Her dream was to get a role in a Hollywood movie, no matter how small.‎"

- The expected behaviour of an individual in a society. "The role of women has changed significantly in the last century.‎"

- The function or position of something. "Local volunteers played an important role in cleaning the beach after the oil spill.‎" "What role does the wax in your earhole fulfill?‎"

- Designation that denotes an associated set of responsibilities, knowledge, skills, and attitudes "The project manager role is responsible for ensuring that everyone on the team knows and executes his or her assigned tasks.‎"

- (grammar): The function of a word in a phrase.

Click to expand...

The only one of the above which might seem to involve personality is the first one related to performing actors. But even in this case the "role" is about the character's function in the story, e.g. the hero, the villain, the damsel in distress, the comic relief... The expression "an actor plays a role" doesn't originally mean that she performs a personality, but rather that she indeed covers a function in the narrative.

pemerton said:

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​

Click to expand...

I think Gygax mixed a bit of personality with function mostly because he wanted his classes to provide also a story function, so that his set of rules could be used to direct also the overarching narrative, and not just the tactics and resolutions during the game.

It is peculiar that nowadays we have largely learned to prefer freedom from rules when it comes to create a PC's personality, and therefore we tend to reject rules restrictions and compulsions to non-tactical behaviour, while yet at the same time we have shifted to calling such non-tactical behaviour "roleplay", which is the part we don't want our "roleplay games" books to tell us how to do.