Learning from GMs at GenCon - Respond to Roleplaying

[Umbran]

What does "roleplaying" mean in this context?

I think, honestly, that "roleplaying" in this context is "playing the role". You have a character. He or she has got some statistics (he's strong, but not smart, or whatever), some abilities, and some backstory. Play as this person would act.

The focus seems to be on things beyond rules-based choices in the midst of combat, on other expression of the character - what your character says and how they behave.

 

[Adso]

I think, honestly, that "roleplaying" in this context is "playing the role". You have a character. He or she has got some statistics (he's strong, but not smart, or whatever), some abilities, and some backstory. Play as this person would act.

The focus seems to be on things beyond rules-based choices in the midst of combat, on other expression of the character - what your character says and how they behave.

That's definitely what I was talking about in my article. It's playing your character's personality, quirks, and goals not the act of driving their skills and powers in the tactical game. You can still roleplay while you are driving their skills and powers, but some people don’t.

Everyone roleplays, some just don’t do it when the dice are flying. They are too into the game play. I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. There is no right way to play roleplaying games, there is just the ways you enjoy to play roleplaying games.

That's why you should engage those people at the table that want to roleplay, you'll increase their enjoyment. Just like you might increase tactical elements with groups who are more into the conflict engines that are part of roleplaying games.

 

[Ariosto]

I think, honestly, that "roleplaying" in this context is "playing the role". You have a character. He or she has got some statistics (he's strong, but not smart, or whatever), some abilities, and some backstory. Play as this person would act.

This is not very helpful. When you are telling someone, "You are not role-playing," by what measure is he or she not "playing the role"? How is it that you are in a better position to say how "this person would act"?

There are very basic questions as to what you mean by "the role" and "this person".

Maybe you have such a firm idea in your own mind that it seems self evident. Maybe you cannot think of the range of possibilities from which it needs to be distinguished. Nonetheless, that range of possibilities has existed for about 40 years.

The "theatrical" interpretation seems to be the prevalent one here.

 

[Ariosto]

They totally roleplayed during the game. One student, Ari even provided dramatic music from his phone each time we found a treasure, and is working on a story based on our success getting off the island.

Is there some context missing here, some relevance to the role being played?

All mechanics in roleplaying games can potentially provide material for roleplaying. I lose hit points; there is a chance to roleplay. I miss with a spell; there is a chance for roleplaying. I lose sanity; I have a chance for roleplaying.

Yes, but what is this "roleplaying"? What must people do to meet your criterion, or else be "not roleplaying"?

This sounds like it encourages description. Is description really synonymous with/causal of/required for RP?

I think that is imprecise, because "I attack" or "I sweet-talk her" are certainly descriptions. If we had no reference at all to interaction with the imagined world -- just "I rolled snake-eyes" or the like -- then I think hardly anyone would speak of "role-playing".

As to whether the medium and act of narration as opposed to actual moves is the focus, I think the trend here is a clear "yes".

The real question is, "Is a certain style and amount of description really synonymous with role-playing?"

Is saying that one is "using the ancient five-knuckle technique passed down to me through 100 generations" more -- or better -- role-playing than a serious fighter's short and sharp response? Does it depend on whether "precedes attacks with recitation of cliches" is part of the imaginary personality being modeled?

 

[Ycore Rixle]

If you are a roleplayer amongst a group of mechanic monkeys, you will have less opportunity to roleplay no matter what system you play. And when you do, you feel uncomfortable, because everyone looks at you like you’re crazy.

Hey Stephen. Thanks for jumping in and elaborating.

As I mentioned above, I agree with your main point: the group does matter. A lot. Often, the voice of the group can shout down the voice of the game.

It's just that one idea, viz. system can only affect roleplaying in very limited ways, that I disagree with. To me, the "system does not much affect roleplaying" idea and the "group is more important than system" idea are not identical. The group can have a larger effect than the system in a significant number of cases, and still that does not mean that system's effect on roleplay is very limited.

Perhaps I am taking a broader view of roleplay than you are. To me, the subject of the roleplay - sci-fi, fantasy combat, shojo heartbreak, etc. - is an example of how the system affects roleplay. The very topic and genre of play is part of roleplay, and different systems push play to different topics and genres. D&D, for example, pushes play toward combat with fantasy monsters, while Forbidden Island pushes play toward escape from a sinking island. I'd say that's an example of system affecting roleplay right there: it affects roleplay so much that the very topic of the play itself is impacted significantly by the system. I'd go further than that in the "system matters" argument, but maybe stopping here is stopping in "Yep we all agree on that" land.

 

[pemerton]

there is a difference between demanding a description because it is actually essential to the game -- as when, in old D&D, I must describe the offer I make to a being I am trying to recruit, or how I treat my henchmen afterward -- and demanding it as something tacked on, a sort of decorative frill.

The former is more related to a "role assumption" or "in those shoes" or "you are there" meaning of role-playing, in which the emphasis is on how one approaches the imagined world.

Agreed. And, as I understand him, this is LostSoul's point also.

EDIT: I would have posrepped you for this, but must spread around more XP at this time:

Is saying that one is "using the ancient five-knuckle technique passed down to me through 100 generations" more -- or better -- role-playing than a serious fighter's short and sharp response? Does it depend on whether "precedes attacks with recitation of cliches" is part of the imaginary personality being modeled?

 

[Jhaelen]

There is no right way to play roleplaying games, there is just the ways you enjoy to play roleplaying games.

This. In an ideal world this would end this (rather pointless) discussion, right?

 

[S'mon]

I find that 4e's social interaction mechanics are sufficiently loose and flexible that they don't actively hinder in-character roleplay the way 3e's did. Players no longer tend to actively avoid speaking IC and look to the diplomacy-monkey to do all the talking, IME.

It's still not as good as talky-mechanics-free games like 1e, though!

 

[jbear]

I think the point made in the article is a good one, and totally valid. Whether or not the roleplaying is 'good' or 'bad', the palyer is making an attempt to add something extra. A good DM should respond to this. Whether 4e encourages roleplay or not seems like another issue.

I have only DMd until very recently. I prefer 4e for a few very simple resons, one of the most important being I can remember all the rules off the top of my head and I no longer have to stop the game to look things up in order to make a ruling. I haven't found any difference in the level of roleplay at my table. But that may have a lot to do with how I DM. When players roleplay I look for ways to respond. When they don't, I actively encourage them to do so (as the roll they are about to make may depend on that +2 I give them, or that i lower the DC from difficult to medium or that I simply don't let them try and intimidate anyone if they aren't going to tell me how they do that).

But that's neither here nor there. The advice given is good advice. I've felt this accutely as I've recently found ways to play as a player. People talk about Grind and 4e a lot, but how is a combat not going to feel 'grindy' when the DM insists that every simgle monster fights until the very death despite the fact the 'monsters' are clearly going to lose, and that is painfully apparant from about the third round. Here was the scenario: PCs on our way to next town. Bandits on the road asking for a toll to be paid. As hardy tough adventurers we roleplay before combat letting our enemies know that we don't fear them, that we aren't going to pay anything and we are going to teach them a lesson they are never going to forget. Cue the fight. DM misses everyone on all but one attack for the first 3 rounds. At the end of the third round the first Bandit dies, another is bloodied. My fighter had been constantly mocking their futile efforts at trying to hit us. The bandits fought on stoicly and in silence. They didn't say anything back, even once. To push my point home I decided to unleash a Daily which raised everyones defenses by two and heckled them again telling them that if they were feeling frustrated before, it was going to get even worse now, we even invited them to run away while they still could. Nothing, silence and they carried on fighting ... until every single one of them was dead. Not really how I would expect a road bandit to behave when he realised he got into a fight he was going to lose. So needless senseless grind. But worse, the feeling of discomfort and frustration that I spent the entire fight talking to myself. Not even a miserable ' Shut your face you goddam big mouth, I'm going to cut your guts out and stuff 'em down that big fat mouth of yours!'.

So, yes, i think it's a key aspect in any DMs style, responding to anything a player throws out there. That's the point made. And it's a good one.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

There is no right way to play roleplaying games, there is just the ways you enjoy to play roleplaying games.

This. In an ideal world this would end this (rather pointless) discussion, right?

No, because while it doesn't matter how you prefer to play it, the system CAN affect your preference positively or negatively by either supporting/facilitating your preference, or discouraging/preventing it. The system may not be doing so intentionally either and may be doing it in subtle ways.

The logical point that SHOULD be made here is that we should be using a system that fully encourages gameplay that matches our preferred approach to the game. The problem with THAT is that this can be very difficult to define. I can't tell you IN DETAIL how I play and why I prefer to play that way - I just do. If I'm not satisfied with a DM's campaign, unless it's stridently opposed to my preferred approach to play or specific situations are driving me nuts it's much more difficult to assess PRECISELY why our styles don't mesh.

So, while system CAN matter a great deal I think it's far less of a factor than whether everyone playing has largely the same preferred approach to the game, or at least that differing approaches don't clash with each other. It's possible (albeit unlikely) to have a ROLLplayer who is satisfied enough with the combat not to be bothered by the ROLEplaying going on around him - which he chooses not to participate in. When styles clash then comprimises have to be made and the game suffers a little bit overall for everyone.