Roleplaying - Is there a right or a wrong way as far as you are concerned?

[Raven Crowking]

I applaud the sentiment, but I'm not comfortable with everything you wrote there. For example, there is no reason ever to say "That's not what my character would do" unless someone else is trying to determine for you what your character would do.


RC

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Another form of bad roleplay is to create party turmoil with statements like "That's not what my character would do" or "I'm only playing my character".

If an action is genuinely something a player's PC would not do, then saying he wouldn't do it and/or actually not doing it is excellent role-play.

The latter statement is similar, but IME is often used to justify an in-character action reflecting the PC at his worst...IOW, the player is stirring things up or trying to get away with some kind of anti-social behavior.*



* Or is playing a Kender

 

[Psychotic Jim]

I think the main thing about roleplaying is that it's fundamentally a social activity packed with the same issues and dynamics as any social relationship. Treating each other with respect and reciprocity as you have fun, and "ur doin' it right" in my book.

 

[Chrono22]

Well, in my view, playing DnD as nothing more than a dungeon delve hack and slash is a travesty. Especially when the players and DM contribute nothing to the play itself- such as, when they don't do anything but rely on the mechanics to be the engine of play. I know where DnD's roots are- I also know the origin of the wheel started with a crudely carved stone. If the experience you're looking for can be replicated in entirety by a MMORPG, I think that's what you should play. I can't see how someone could justify putting stone wheels onto a car, I can't see how someone can justify playing a tabletop RPG if they don't use any of their imagination.

 

[Jack Daniel]

The right way to role-play: determining your actions from your imagined character's perspective. Doesn't matter if you're full-immersion LARPing, occasionally speaking in character, or just rolling dice to resolve social interactions and tersely describing everything in the third person. As long as actions are determined by character, not player, perspective, it's role-playing.

The wrong way to role-play: meta-gaming. Playing your character not as your character, but as a gamer out to win the game.

That said, there are plenty of stylistic variations which are indeed legitimate role-playing which still irk me nonetheless. Most of them being one extreme or the other. I want no truck with players who get too much into their characters, that they cannot observe the boundary between the reality and the fantasy; and, likewise, the players who just don't give a crap about their characters, the setting, the labor which has gone into the campaign, the DM, or fellow players. Both extremes in my experience lead to a kind of selfish, childish, and really antisocial sort of role-playing, where the player either hogs the spotlight or actively derails the campaign, and where the character is made to act in ways which are downright psychopathic by normal standards.

In short, "right" role-playing is simply not meta-gaming. "Good" role-playing, the best role-playing, comes from a mature respect for one's fellow players and for the work that the DM has put into the campaign.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The right way to role-play: determining your actions from your imagined character's perspective. Doesn't matter if you're full-immersion LARPing, occasionally speaking in character, or just rolling dice to resolve social interactions and tersely describing everything in the third person. As long as actions are determined by character, not player, perspective, it's role-playing.

The wrong way to role-play: meta-gaming. Playing your character not as your character, but as a gamer out to win the game.

I am playing my character trying hard to survive a dangerous adventure.

If I survive the adventure I gain xp and loot and thus win the game!!

Trying to survive is metagaming!!

It's a trap!!!

 

[LostSoul]

The wrong way to role-play: meta-gaming. Playing your character not as your character, but as a gamer out to win the game.

Oh, yeah, I totally disagree with that. It could be bad for some groups, but in mine I've told the players explicitly that they can draw on and use metagame information. I expect them to. My game is about challenging the players, though, so it works and works well.

 

[KidSnide]

The wrong way to role-play: meta-gaming. Playing your character not as your character, but as a gamer out to win the game.

Oh, yeah, I totally disagree with that. It could be bad for some groups, but in mine I've told the players explicitly that they can draw on and use metagame information. I expect them to. My game is about challenging the players, though, so it works and works well.

There is also a semantic difference here. I agree that meta-gaming is not a good way to role-play, in the sense that I think "role-play" means the "acting out your character" part of RPGs. But I don't think there is anything wrong with having fun with an RPG in which the tactical and/or problem-solving aspects* of the game are more important.

-KS

* Or, for that matter, the social aspect of the game, the silly/humorous aspects of the game or whatever other aspect you find entertaining...

 

[Oryan77]

The right way to roleplay = drunk.

The wrong way to roleplay = a Scottish guy playing an elf instead of a dwarf like he was born to do.

 

[fuzzlewump]

If an action is genuinely something a player's PC would not do, then saying he wouldn't do it and/or actually not doing it is excellent role-play.

The latter statement is similar, but IME is often used to justify an in-character action reflecting the PC at his worst...IOW, the player is stirring things up or trying to get away with some kind of anti-social behavior.*



* Or is playing a Kender

I think the idea is that if the party has to go on the plane to get to their next destination, and one member is afraid of flying, it's bad to say "it's not what my character would do," and not do it no matter what. I don't see how that's excellent roleplay. I think it's staying consistent with an attribute you decided on a whim to begin with, but I would say that's a neutral thing, since being consistent depends on the attribute. Being consistently a jerk would be a bad thing, consistently nice is a good thing.

It's better to say, "I won't get on the plane, but you can knock me out and put me on the plane comically" or some such, to avoid the 'blocking' described above by Janx.