What exactly is "Roleplaying", Do We Think?

[Balesir]

In this thread here [MENTION=10479]Mark CMG[/MENTION] wrote (in some frustration, I think) thusly:

Try to help me wrap my head around your frustration with one of the traditional aspects of roleplaying games and your desire to jettison it, as well as helping me understand what constitutes roleplaying in your eyes and what roleplaying you wish to include to replace what you wish to eject. Because, honestly, I'm seeing a number of folks speaking in similar terms over the years but they tend to conflate their terms. They also tend to want to replace roleplaying aspects with other game aspects (like rolling dice), which is all well and good for the sake of gaming (though not for roleplay gaming) and having fun, but at some point when you've removed much, most, or all of the roleplaying, isn't it just a good idea to not call it a roleplaying game anymore? Don't get me wrong, I have fun with many styles of gameplay, I just tend to use rules that focus prmarily on the style of gameplay I am interested in exploring at that time. So, tell me more about this frustration you feel with having a GM be your conduit to an RPG setting versus getting on with it and preferring that the dice be what gives you your information on how to make your next move in the game you're calling a roleplaying game.

Here, he asks what others think "roleplaying" is but is really quite vague about his own picture of it. It's a term I see bandied about - often with some implication that it is "obvious" what we mean by it, but with no real explanation or justification.

So, I have made this thread in an attempt to have some ENWorlders explain what they mean when they say "roleplauing". To get the party rolling, I'll start, but first a disclaimer: I am trying to promote discourse and develop my own and others' thoughts, here, and I thus reserve the right to modify my views later - especially if others post some really good, thoughtful stuff that make me think anew about what I view "roleplaying" as. If anyone comes back saying "but in post #14232341 in February, 2012 you said..." I may get rude.

So: I think roleplaying is...

...characterised by two steps:

1) I form a view of the world in my imagination as a character (which I am "roleplaying") sees the situation they are in, and

2) I have that character take decisions based on that view of the (imaginary) world.

The "view" i create does not have to be a literal, pictorial "view" of what the character sees, hears, smells and so on - it can be a conceptual picture of their position as it relates to other characters in the world, to organisations in the game world or to physical elements of the game world (e.g. "there is a cliff over there, and it would be a tricky climb for me but possible").

Likewise, the decisions for the actions the character will take do not need to be at the level of minutiae - much less do I need to act them out, although I might choose to do so. In other words, I don't need to "wear the mask" of the character's physical presence in order to roleplay - I just need to envision their view of the world around them as it pertains to decisions that the game group have decided to focus on for the purposes of the game, and then to make those decisions congruent with that vision.

What do others here think? Is more/less/different required for you to call something "roleplaying"?

 

[chaochou]

At this moment, my broad summary of roleplaying would be:

Fiction -----> System -----> Fiction

 

[Mark CMG]

Here, he asks what others think "roleplaying" is but is really quite vague about his own picture of it.

(. . .)

What do others here think? Is more/less/different required for you to call something "roleplaying"?

Sorry I didn't spell it out in that particular post. The person I was replying to with that post and I had previous, recent discussions in another thread such that I didn't feel the need to repeat my definition of roleplaying at that time. From my perspective, roleplaying in tabletop roleplaying games, is the first person interaction by one or more players (through their characters), with a virtual setting, its inhabitants, and one another, by means of a facilitator who acts as the sensory conduit for the player characters. The players detail the actions of their characters with first person narrative and/or dialogue, the facilitator describes the consequences (perhaps introducing additional exposition and elements of conflict), and the process continues in like fashion.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Sorry I didn't spell it out in that particular post. The person I was replying to with that post and I had previous, recent discussions in another thread such that I didn't feel the need to repeat my definition of roleplaying at that time. From my perspective, roleplaying in tabletop roleplaying games, is the first person interaction by one or more players (through their characters), with a virtual setting, its inhabitants, and one another, by means of a facilitator who acts as the sensory conduit for the player characters. The players detail the actions of their characters with first person narrative and/or dialogue, the facilitator describes the consequences (perhaps introducing additional exposition and elements of conflict), and the process continues in like fashion.

I think this is how most people think of RP, but would add speaking in character is generally regarded as the hallmark of role playing or a heavy rp session. I also kind of don't understand your confusion over the term Belasir (no snark or insult meant by this). In my experience everyone I have gamed with over the past twenty five years pretty much understands role playing to mean something like mark's definition. I am sure someone could try to deconstruct it into oblivion, but it has an obvious and real meaning for most gamers (or at least I think for gamers who have been around since 1 and 2e).

 

[Janx]

role playing, as in playing a role or character.

It means defining a character, by its motivations, mannerisms, personality and traits and making in-game decisions and portrayal of the character that are consistent.

If you say your character always comes to the aid of women, hates anybody who mistreats them (ala Harry Dresden in The Dresden Files), then your PC should almost always rush to defend a woman in need. He would be hard-pressed to have a reason NOT to help her (such as knowing she was evil and just manipulating him because she is a recurring NPC who has pulled this trick on him before).

Thus, in the first encounter of the game, if the PC witnesses a man beating a woman, he must intervene if he is roleplaying his character correctly.

As a matter of presentation in the game, I like to speak the quoted dialogue for my character. However, I do not consider it invalid roleplaying to describe your PC's actions in first or third person, but to avoid or minimize actual quoted dialogue. Thus: the following exchanges with the GM are still roleplaying:

PC: I politely ask the innkeep if he has any rooms for some weary travelers.

or

PC: "Good evening. My friends and I have traveled a long way, have you any rooms available for the night?"

or

PC: Janx wearily walks up to the counter, and asks if there's any rooms for his friends. He brushes off some of the mud that's fallen off his arm onto the counter to the floor, so as not to irk the innkeep.

 

[amerigoV]

Mine is pretty close to the OP's. Basically, so long as the PCs are doing things logical to the world and the character's POV, that is all I really care about. Talking "in character" is nice, but not always easy and certainly not required.

 

[billd91]

As a matter of presentation in the game, I like to speak the quoted dialogue for my character. However, I do not consider it invalid roleplaying to describe your PC's actions in first or third person, but to avoid or minimize actual quoted dialogue. Thus: the following exchanges with the GM are still roleplaying:

PC: I politely ask the innkeep if he has any rooms for some weary travelers.

or

PC: "Good evening. My friends and I have traveled a long way, have you any rooms available for the night?"

or

PC: Janx wearily walks up to the counter, and asks if there's any rooms for his friends. He brushes off some of the mud that's fallen off his arm onto the counter to the floor, so as not to irk the innkeep.

I agree. Furthermore, role playing, to me, isn't just a binary condition - I'm either doing it or I'm not. It's also a descriptive continuum. How much of it am I doing? Speaking in the first person with an accent is more role-playish than speaking in the third person. I'm still role playing in both cases but I'm doing it to different degrees.

 

[Janx]

I agree. Furthermore, role playing, to me, isn't just a binary condition - I'm either doing it or I'm not. It's also a descriptive continuum. How much of it am I doing? Speaking in the first person with an accent is more role-playish than speaking in the third person. I'm still role playing in both cases but I'm doing it to different degrees.

I think you miss my point. You're talking about the presentation of character.

I'm talking about the behavior of character.

If you tell me your PC is always calm and collected, and always thinks before he acts, then I expect to see that in play. If you instead play him as a hothead who always overreacts to problems, then you are not role-playing.

This is the crux of what I believe the alignment system was intended. If you say your PC is Lawful Good, then I should be able to see that reflected in how you play your character. While there's some variance in interpretation, I should not think your PC is Chaotic Evil.

 

[Umbran]

If you tell me your PC is always calm and collected, and always thinks before he acts, then I expect to see that in play. If you instead play him as a hothead who always overreacts to problems, then you are not role-playing.

If you tell me you plan to drive at or under 55 mph, and you instead drive at 75 mph, are you not driving? I sure hope so, because otherwise I don't know how the car's moving!

He's still role playing - he's just not matching the expectations he set for you. Role-playing is not the practice of living up to a specific predefined character sketch.

This is the crux of what I believe the alignment system was intended. If you say your PC is Lawful Good, then I should be able to see that reflected in how you play your character.

Alignment is a result of actions, not the cause of them. He is lawful good because, in the past, that's how he behaved. This should not be binding on future behavior. He may behave differently going forward, and if he does so for long enough, then his alignment will drift.

 

[Janx]

He's still role playing - he's just not matching the expectations he set for you. Role-playing is not the practice of living up to a specific predefined character sketch.

there is the crux of our disagreement.

To me role-playing is playing according to the definition of the character.

Even the kinky form follows this pattern. When your girlfriend puts on the naughty nurse outfit, there is a definition of character. if she acts like herself (assuming she is not normally a naughty nurse or porn star) or like a construction worker, she is not role playing.

There can be a grey area if you have not pre-established/defined your character that you may define it through game play. But eventually, a sense of that character should form as something that your portrayal of him is consistent, barring character growth in the game.

It's not even about the GM. The PLAYER should be asking, what is this PC like, and then playing that PC according to the answer.

Otherwise, you are just making stuff up and doing whatever seems like a good idea.

Alignment is a result of actions, not the cause of them. He is lawful good because, in the past, that's how he behaved. This should not be binding on future behavior. He may behave differently going forward, and if he does so for long enough, then his alignment will drift.

A PC should not run 10 levels being Lawful Good and the next day, start commiting CE crimes. That isn't who the character is, unless the PC was really evil all along or has had a character changing event occur that makes him embrace evil.

A player who says "I'm going to start doing evil stuff now, because we had 3 new evil PCs join the party" is not roleplaying.

Obviously, there are other styles of playing. I follow my definition, which anything less strikes me as incomprehensible per the defintion of the term roleplaying or acting. My key observation is that at some point, your PC is defined a certain way. If you keep playing him that way, perhaps adjusting as life events happen, you are roleplaying. If you keep moving him around the board as a game token, you are not roleplaying.