What exactly is "Roleplaying", Do We Think?

[pemerton]

To me the role play stuff would be th wizard interacting with an NPC through dialogue.

But isn't that still system? - resolution by free roleplaying.

Suppose a PC is interacting with an NPC, say talking about the weather and the price of goats. Then the PC (as controlled by his/her player) brings the topic of conversation around to the real issue at hand in the game - does the NPC have any ideas who the werewolf might be? In fact, the NPC knows who the werewolf is - it's her nephew - but she wants to keep this secret. So she lies to the PC. And now the dice come out - depending on system, this could be Bluff vs Insight, it could be a skill challenge, it could be a HW/Q extended contest.

I think this is where the roleplaying really takes off - this is the core stuff of the game, putting the PCs into situations of conflict and seeing what happens - but a "roleplaying vs system" dichotomy seems to imply that as soon as things hot up, and so the action resolution mechanics are called into action, the roleplaying is dropping away.

You seem to be conflating playing a character in a roleplaying game with the more specific roleplaying part of playing a character. Roleplaying has a more narrow definition which seems to be accounting for the perceived dichotomy. I certainly agree that playing a character in a roleplaying game involves much more than just the roleplaying portion, including the rolling of dice and some other mechanical trappings. Perhaps you were looking on my definition of roleplaying and expecting a broader definition to include all activities involved in playing a character?

If I'm conflating, it's not careless but deliberate. For the reasons given upthread and above in this post, I'm sceptical of the role/roll dichotomy. I don't find a definition of "roleplaying" very helpful if, as soon as the game really gets going, the definition implies that roleplaying is reducing.

 

[Mark CMG]

If I'm conflating, it's not careless but deliberate. For the reasons given upthread and above in this post, I'm sceptical of the role/roll dichotomy. I don't find a definition of "roleplaying" very helpful if, as soon as the game really gets going, the definition implies that roleplaying is reducing.

Could you be more explicit?

 

[rkwoodard]

old school

I believe that some of the old school (of which I think I am), believe that the Role of Roleplaying is not remotely Character Acting, it is in the simple act of playing a role....ie "what is your role?" "fighter", and thus the role you play in game is fighter.

If I have mis-represented and offended any hard core old schoolers, I apologize.

But frankly, this makes a lot of sense to me. The role is what you do, not who you are. If you are playing a system with skills, and have a wizard with some lock picking. And you insist on trying to open all the doors with lockpicking, Yes, you are playing in-character, but you are not role-playing your wizard very well.

Now, with more modern systems with lots of customization this tends to break down, as you can have a wizard that may very will have a good lock pick score. But to my mind, that is still different.

RK

 

[JonWake]

Here Goes:

A roleplaying game is a social form of entertainment characterized by a shared, imagined space, a way to resolve conflicts within that shared space, and division of responsibility with regards to events within that space.

I think that is broad enough to encompass most every RPG, while still having hard edges that makes it different than any other form of entertainment.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But isn't that still system? - resolution by free roleplaying.

Suppose a PC is interacting with an NPC, say talking about the weather and the price of goats. Then the PC (as controlled by his/her player) brings the topic of conversation around to the real issue at hand in the game - does the NPC have any ideas who the werewolf might be? In fact, the NPC knows who the werewolf is - it's her nephew - but she wants to keep this secret. So she lies to the PC. And now the dice come out - depending on system, this could be Bluff vs Insight, it could be a skill challenge, it could be a HW/Q extended contest.

I think this is where the roleplaying really takes off - this is the core stuff of the game, putting the PCs into situations of conflict and seeing what happens - but a "roleplaying vs system" dichotomy seems to imply that as soon as things hot up, and so the action resolution mechanics are called into action, the roleplaying is dropping away.

.

No, it isn't system because i am talking about speaking in character. Free roleplay is not system by any way I or most people understand that term. To me you are just playing semantics here. The gm doesn't bluff you with dice (roll playing), he bluffs you by actully trying to bluff in character.

I think using such rolls if you like to; i occassionally use them. But to me that stuff isn't the role playing side of things. It may certainly interacting with RP. RP may follow as a result of the roll.

Really the point is, a resolution mechanic isn't always optimal for roleplaying dialogue. To give an example, i recently ran ravenloft with 2E after nearly ten years of running it with 3E. It had been years since I played 2e and i had grown accustomed to 3E social skills. The difference was astounding to me. We used NWP, but stuff there was nothing to use t resolve bluffs, diplomacy, etc. Even perception was mostly the player saying where he was looking and hiw inently. This really amped up the in character dialogue and produced a much more immersive experience than with the social skill rolls. This was the roleplaying I rememered from ny youth but just chalked up to nostalgia, never the system.

My point isn't you shouldn't use social skill rolls, ut I do think they can have a dampening imoact on RP when overused. To me there is a huge differene between speaking in character to interogate the assassin, versus saying "i roll my diplomacy skill". The former is role playing and the later is the game side of rpg.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I believe that some of the old school (of which I think I am), believe that the Role of Roleplaying is not remotely Character Acting, it is in the simple act of playing a role....ie "what is your role?" "fighter", and thus the role you play in game is fighter.

If I have mis-represented and offended any hard core old schoolers, I apologize.

But frankly, this makes a lot of sense to me. The role is what you do, not who you are. If you are playing a system with skills, and have a wizard with some lock picking. And you insist on trying to open all the doors with lockpicking, Yes, you are playing in-character, but you are not role-playing your wizard very well.

This is pretty much my position. This also happens to conform to ways in which I have observed kids playing cops and robbers and the like, which I think nicely removes the "game" objection to this version.

Whatever "characterization" is going on in the literary sense, is a separate subject, though obviously closely aligned at times wih the roleplaying and the social expectations at the table. Choosing to always go with a first person speaking style, everything the players says is what the character says, etc. is a particular style of characterization that is more suitable for some campaigns or others.

In our games, if you always speak in first person, and thus limit your ability to convey the role to your limits as such a speaker/actor, then you probably are not roleplaying as well as you could be. The point is to convey the role into the shared imagined space. If third person speaking, or even some occasionally second person riffing with another player, will get you there, then we expect that.

Saying that one style of characterization is all of roleplaying is like saying that only plays or film or novels or operas are "dramas". It's confusing an instance of something with the thing itself. If you happen to really enjoy, say, opera and not have a lot of experience with the other options, then it is an understandable confusion. But it is still a category error.

 

[Janx]

I believe that some of the old school (of which I think I am), believe that the Role of Roleplaying is not remotely Character Acting, it is in the simple act of playing a role....ie "what is your role?" "fighter", and thus the role you play in game is fighter.

This is a broad definition. It basically says, everybody playing a role playing game like D&D is role playing.

What do you call what I describe?

People who are heavier into character portrayal are doing something in addition to playing a fighter in the game. The decisions they make and the way they present their PC to others is considered from the perspective of a fictional personality, not just a guy who has better stats at fighting than casting spells.

What is that called?

 

[Desdichado]

Full circle even.

Is this a bad attempt at a joke? Me saying, "Don't flatter yourself" has absolutely no relation to the concept of me flattering you.

What am I missing here? By which, what I really mean is, what are you missing here? You even quoted the relevant parts and still can't seem to understand the relationship between the subject and the object in a sentence. I don't know how to be more clear.

 

[Mark CMG]

What am I missing here?

You jumped into this thread to voice an opinion, not on the meaning of roleplaying, as the thread requested, but as to your opinion of people who want to define it. It's just threadcrapping. As to the rest, I don't think I can be of any help to you. We'll probably have to just move on at some point.

 

[JonWake]

Mm, I'm going to refine my definition, to whit:

A roleplaying game is a social form of entertainment characterized by a shared, imagined space, a way to resolve conflicts within that shared space, and division of responsibility with regards to events within that space. Events, conflicts, and characters exist primarily in this shared, imagined space, and may or may not have notation and analogs in the real world.

This is the key point that makes TTRPGs different than other games: all of the story, or combat, or what have you that makes up the game exists primarily as a discussion between the players. If miniatures or what have you are used, its to represent these people. Contrast this with a board game, where the imagined space is a result of the board game's design.