What exactly is "Roleplaying", Do We Think?

[rkwoodard]

It is broad

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?

It is broad, but I think that it is true to the original meaning and intent of the game.

What you describe is characterization (like Crazy Jerome state) or acting. Or maybe the retro-clone of Mazes and Monsters has it correct and it is a Psycho-Drama Game.

I know that terms and meanings evolve. So, my definition is a bit of a relic, and I am ok with that.

And don't get me wrong, I love playing in Character, I would kill to play in a Dresden Game, which is a lot more about WHO you are rather than what ROLE you play.

RK

 

[Desdichado]

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.

Er... wrong, yet again. I voiced my opinion on exactly the topic of the thread. Which was that it's a futile gesture to attempt to pin down what roleplaying means and not necessary to do after all for the reasons stated before.

Y'know, when I'm at the point where I'm repeating myself over and over again to someone who's being willfully obtuse, I guess I'm at the point where the conversation has played it's course.

 

[Mark CMG]

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.

Er... wrong, yet again. I voiced my opinion on exactly the topic of the thread. Which was that it's a futile gesture to attempt to pin down what roleplaying means and not necessary to do after all for the reasons stated before.

Got it, it's either obvious or can't be defined then, of course, you added the following for whatever reasons you felt it necessary.

A lot of times the charge of "that's not roleplaying" or "maybe you should get a new label for your game, because it's no longer a roleplaying game" or whatever are more about scoring points in an imaginary "playstyle wars" kind of way rather than indicating true confusion. It's a common failing amongst people that they pretend not to understand stuff that they don't like or don't agree with, when they actually understand it just fine--they just don't like it or don't agree with it.

I get that kind of playing dumb from my teenagers all the time when they're in a punk mood and just want to be contrary and ornery. But I get it plenty from other folks who are older too, and I've caught myself doing it plenty of times myself.

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.

(. . .) I guess I'm at the point where the conversation has played it's course.

I think we've past that point.

 

[pemerton]

Could you be more explicit?

I'll try. Let me start by repeating my example:

The PCs are looking for a werewolf that is terrorising the countryside. One of the PCs is interacting with an NPC farmer, 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?

Now, unbeknownst to the players, the NPC does know who the werewolf is - it's her nephew . But she wants to keep this secret, because she doesn't want her nephew skewered by silver arrows. So the GM decide that the NPC will lie to the PC.​

Now, in my view, at this point we have got to the core stuff of the game. There is conflict in the fiction - the PC wants to learn something that the NPC wants to keep secret. And there is the need, at the table, to collectively work out, in some fashion, how the fiction develops. Will the PC get what s/he wants, or not?

I see "system" as the method for working out, at the table, how the fiction will proceed when the stakes are serious. It is not uncommon to see people (including posters on these boards) say "system is important for combat, because my PC might die, but otherwise we don't need it". I tend to think that this just emphasises that life or death in combat is one common serious stake in an RPG, but it is not the only one.

In the social conflict that I've described, there are a range of possible systems for resolving it. At least some involve the dice coming out, but I don't think that this means we're suddenly not roleplaying any more (and "rollplaying" instead). Rather, I tend to think that (at least in a good RPG that also uses dice) when the dice come out is exactly when the heavy duty roleplaying has started. This is when we really find out what the PCs are made of, and what the players care about!

Now, if when playing some particular system the fiction drops away as soon as the dice come out - the game turning instead into a "boardgame" or "skirmish game" a "wannabe videogame" - then that shows either (i) that something is wrong with the mechanics, or (ii) that something has gone wrong with the procedures of play for the particular group. This is the import - for me at least - of [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION]'s summary upthread. In an RPG the system has to mediate from fiction to fiction, not make the fiction drop away. If the system does not care about the fictional position of the PCs, then it is a bad system.

Even when a system does care about fictional positioning, though - which means there is no problem (i) - there can still be issues with a particular group's procedures of play - option (ii).

Bedrockgames give's an example of what I mean by this:

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.

What does "I roll my diplomacy skill" mean? What is the fictional framing in which the situation is engaged, and what are the consequences in the fiction of a successful or failed roll? To me, this sort of example doesn't show "rollplaying" vs "roleplaying". It is an example of roleplaying dropping out because, in a particular group's procedures of play, the fiction has dropped out.

Some systems have explicit procedures to try and make sure that the fiction doesn't drop out - Burning Wheel's "intent and task", for example, which must be established as part of any skill check. The 4e DMG and PHB have similar, although less clearly stated, requirements for making a check in a skill challenge. But there is no way of ensuring that groups will follow these procedures, as the number of threads on "skill challenges as mere dice rolling" illustrate.

The degree of specification of the fiction, on the other hand, I think is a matter of group taste, and different systems support different approaches. In some groups, "I say a few soothing words to calm him down" will be enough fictional detail to underpin a diplomacy check, just like in some groups "I attack the nearest orc with my sword" is enough fictional detail to underpin an attack roll. Other groups and other systems might insist on more detail in one or both situations before the system becomes meaningfully engaged.

But I agree with chaochou - provided we're talking about system mediating a developing shared fiction (with protagonists and their supporting cast at the centre of that fiction) then we have roleplaying.

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 don't agree that free roleplay is not system. When a player has his/her PC persuade the GM's NPC via free roleplaying, this is not the player persuading the GM -that would be, for example, a player getting a reroll of a failed save by persuading the GM that the die was cocked.

Free roleplaying involves making decisions about what a PC/NPC knows/feels/hopes etc, about what s/he will say/do, and drawing inferences about how the words and actions of other characters in the fiction will affect all that. The GM doesn't have an NPC change her mind because s/he, the GM, has changed her mind. It happens because she decides that "this is what the NPC would do in this situation". That is a system of adjudicating changes to the content of the fiction.

The GM bluffing the players is particularly curious case, because GMing involves withholding information from the players as a routine part and very important part of the job. When the players ask "What do we see?" you have to be able to answer "Nothing" without smirking so badly as to give away that the room is actually full of invisible stalkers.

When playing a bluffing NPC via free roleplaying, the GM (at least in my experience) deliberately has the NPC say certain things, or deliberately inserts certain cues into his/her "performance", which the players are then expected to pick up on. Again, this is a system.

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.

But there is still system here, isn't there? The system for percpetion is (1) describe where your PC is looking (prefereably in 1st person), and (2) describe how intently your PC is looking. (Out of curiosity, what sort of considerations motivated players in choosing whether to glance, to peer, to study, etc?) Then the GM, based on his/her conception of the relevant fictional situation, tells the player what his/her PC sees.

It's a while since I've played this sort of game. My preferred vehicle for it is Basic Roleplaying (especially Cthulhu). It seems to me to give a lot of power to the GM (because of the centrality, at step (2), of the GM's conception of the fictional situation). I therefore have to be pretty confident that the GM is going to give me an interesting experience!

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?

Acting?

Although there is a lot going on in talking about "the way they present their PC to others is considered from the perspective a fictional personality".

I mean, consider playing the Tomb of Horrors in old-school mode. The PCs are just vehicles for the PCs to confront the challenges - we don't know what the fighter's favourite colour is, or where he was born, or anything like that - we just know that he is following the red path down the corridor to the open-mouthed demon-statue.

This is roleplaying by chaochou's definition, I think - there is fiction leading to and framing the engagement of system leading back to the fiction. But the fiction is not a fiction about genteel souls. It's a fiction about gritty dungeon exploration.

My own view is that, if I want to play a game in which favourite colours, and place of birth, come to the fore, then I certainly won't choose the ToH - I'll set up scenarios that make these things matter, so that the fiction which feeds into the system is fiction in which birthplaces are at stake ("Who is the last survivor of the ruined city of Entekash?"), and the system in turn generates new states of the fiction that continue to prioritise these matters.

I personally find games in which players create these deep personae for their PCs, but those personae have no relevance to play except to create the occasional bit of flavour around action to which it is otherwise irrelevant, slightly annoying. The most ruthless statement of this view would be "If it's not relevant to play, don't bore me with it!" I'm not quite that ruthless, but I have had too many bad experiences playing with thespian dungeon-crawlers, and wanting to shake them all and say "If you care about these aspects of your PCs so much, then what the hell are you doing playing a dungeon crawl game?!"

 

[Bedrockgames]

Pemerton again i think you are making a semantic argument more than anything else by trying to turn everything on the term system and draw roleplay into that definition in order to deconstruct any dstinction between rp and roll play. I just dont buy this personally. I think it is perfectly obvious i was talking about a mechanical system and wouldn't include the gm having a method based on motives, dialogue, etc in there. To me there is an enormous difference between using a set of mechanics to determine success or failure of a particular dialoge or action, vs resolving it by playing the character fully. The later is a much more role play heavy experience than one which glosses over the details and opts for a roll (or any mechanical system).

Again i am not saying social rolls are bad or you shouldn't use them. I use them myself and incude them in games I design. What I am saying is people should try a social skill and perception skill holiday and see if it impacts their role playing experience in a positive way. To me dialogue is not required to be role playing (i may nt have been clear enough on this) but it is at the far end of the role play spectrum. To me, and I think for the vast majority of gamers until the last eight years or so, "i trick the duke with a diplomacy roll" is ust as far on the gaming side of the hobby as making an attack roll. There can still be rp here, but once the mechanics take priority, what you say in character matters less and less. The stuff you actually role play matters less than the result of the roll. No matter how you "frame" it, you are removed at least a step from the character, motivations, the environment etc.

I also think your focus on the "fiction" of it is part of ur disagreement here, depending on how you use the term. To me it is about the experience, not about generating a fiction. I want to have the feel of solving the riddle, be emgaged in he critical conversation to talk the duke out of betraying his people etc. Yes i also want game elements in play occassionally as well. But i find after years of doing both the social skills and doig it without them, they damatically impact the level of heavy role play ad immersion at the table (even for players who were adamant they had no such effect).

 

[Mark CMG]

I'll try. Let me start by repeating my example:

The PCs are looking for a werewolf that is terrorising the countryside. One of the PCs is interacting with an NPC farmer, 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?

Now, unbeknownst to the players, the NPC does know who the werewolf is - it's her nephew . But she wants to keep this secret, because she doesn't want her nephew skewered by silver arrows. So the GM decide that the NPC will lie to the PC.​

Now, in my view, at this point we have got to the core stuff of the game. There is conflict in the fiction - the PC wants to learn something that the NPC wants to keep secret. And there is the need, at the table, to collectively work out, in some fashion, how the fiction develops. Will the PC get what s/he wants, or not?

I see "system" as the method for working out, at the table, how the fiction will proceed when the stakes are serious. It is not uncommon to see people (including posters on these boards) say "system is important for combat, because my PC might die, but otherwise we don't need it". I tend to think that this just emphasises that life or death in combat is one common serious stake in an RPG, but it is not the only one.

In the social conflict that I've described, there are a range of possible systems for resolving it. At least some involve the dice coming out, but I don't think that this means we're suddenly not roleplaying any more (and "rollplaying" instead). Rather, I tend to think that (at least in a good RPG that also uses dice) when the dice come out is exactly when the heavy duty roleplaying has started. This is when we really find out what the PCs are made of, and what the players care about!

Now, if when playing some particular system the fiction drops away as soon as the dice come out - the game turning instead into a "boardgame" or "skirmish game" a "wannabe videogame" - then that shows either (i) that something is wrong with the mechanics, or (ii) that something has gone wrong with the procedures of play for the particular group. This is the import - for me at least - of [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION]'s summary upthread. In an RPG the system has to mediate from fiction to fiction, not make the fiction drop away. If the system does not care about the fictional position of the PCs, then it is a bad system.

Even when a system does care about fictional positioning, though - which means there is no problem (i) - there can still be issues with a particular group's procedures of play - option (ii).

Bedrockgames give's an example of what I mean by this:

What does "I roll my diplomacy skill" mean? What is the fictional framing in which the situation is engaged, and what are the consequences in the fiction of a successful or failed roll? To me, this sort of example doesn't show "rollplaying" vs "roleplaying". It is an example of roleplaying dropping out because, in a particular group's procedures of play, the fiction has dropped out.

Some systems have explicit procedures to try and make sure that the fiction doesn't drop out - Burning Wheel's "intent and task", for example, which must be established as part of any skill check. The 4e DMG and PHB have similar, although less clearly stated, requirements for making a check in a skill challenge. But there is no way of ensuring that groups will follow these procedures, as the number of threads on "skill challenges as mere dice rolling" illustrate.

The degree of specification of the fiction, on the other hand, I think is a matter of group taste, and different systems support different approaches. In some groups, "I say a few soothing words to calm him down" will be enough fictional detail to underpin a diplomacy check, just like in some groups "I attack the nearest orc with my sword" is enough fictional detail to underpin an attack roll. Other groups and other systems might insist on more detail in one or both situations before the system becomes meaningfully engaged.

But I agree with chaochou - provided we're talking about system mediating a developing shared fiction (with protagonists and their supporting cast at the centre of that fiction) then we have roleplaying.

I don't agree that free roleplay is not system. When a player has his/her PC persuade the GM's NPC via free roleplaying, this is not the player persuading the GM -that would be, for example, a player getting a reroll of a failed save by persuading the GM that the die was cocked.

Free roleplaying involves making decisions about what a PC/NPC knows/feels/hopes etc, about what s/he will say/do, and drawing inferences about how the words and actions of other characters in the fiction will affect all that. The GM doesn't have an NPC change her mind because s/he, the GM, has changed her mind. It happens because she decides that "this is what the NPC would do in this situation". That is a system of adjudicating changes to the content of the fiction.

The GM bluffing the players is particularly curious case, because GMing involves withholding information from the players as a routine part and very important part of the job. When the players ask "What do we see?" you have to be able to answer "Nothing" without smirking so badly as to give away that the room is actually full of invisible stalkers.

When playing a bluffing NPC via free roleplaying, the GM (at least in my experience) deliberately has the NPC say certain things, or deliberately inserts certain cues into his/her "performance", which the players are then expected to pick up on. Again, this is a system.

But there is still system here, isn't there? The system for percpetion is (1) describe where your PC is looking (prefereably in 1st person), and (2) describe how intently your PC is looking. (Out of curiosity, what sort of considerations motivated players in choosing whether to glance, to peer, to study, etc?) Then the GM, based on his/her conception of the relevant fictional situation, tells the player what his/her PC sees.

It's a while since I've played this sort of game. My preferred vehicle for it is Basic Roleplaying (especially Cthulhu). It seems to me to give a lot of power to the GM (because of the centrality, at step (2), of the GM's conception of the fictional situation). I therefore have to be pretty confident that the GM is going to give me an interesting experience!

Acting?

Although there is a lot going on in talking about "the way they present their PC to others is considered from the perspective a fictional personality".

I mean, consider playing the Tomb of Horrors in old-school mode. The PCs are just vehicles for the PCs to confront the challenges - we don't know what the fighter's favourite colour is, or where he was born, or anything like that - we just know that he is following the red path down the corridor to the open-mouthed demon-statue.

This is roleplaying by chaochou's definition, I think - there is fiction leading to and framing the engagement of system leading back to the fiction. But the fiction is not a fiction about genteel souls. It's a fiction about gritty dungeon exploration.

My own view is that, if I want to play a game in which favourite colours, and place of birth, come to the fore, then I certainly won't choose the ToH - I'll set up scenarios that make these things matter, so that the fiction which feeds into the system is fiction in which birthplaces are at stake ("Who is the last survivor of the ruined city of Entekash?"), and the system in turn generates new states of the fiction that continue to prioritise these matters.

I personally find games in which players create these deep personae for their PCs, but those personae have no relevance to play except to create the occasional bit of flavour around action to which it is otherwise irrelevant, slightly annoying. The most ruthless statement of this view would be "If it's not relevant to play, don't bore me with it!" I'm not quite that ruthless, but I have had too many bad experiences playing with thespian dungeon-crawlers, and wanting to shake them all and say "If you care about these aspects of your PCs so much, then what the hell are you doing playing a dungeon crawl game?!"

Let's say that an Opera is acting and singing. Let's say acting equates to roleplaying and singing equates to (part of the game) system and Operas equate to Roleplaying Games. Acting while singing doesn't make singing acting. Someone can sing without being in an Opera and someone can act without it being Opera but combining the activities in certain ways allow for the combination to become Opera. Roleplaying games combine a way of gaming with roleplaying. Someone can roleplay without gaming and game without roleplaying but combining the activities in certain ways allow for the combination to become roleplaying gaming. And to add to the confusion, someone can be playing their chaarcter by combining some portions of gaming (not all) with roleplaying. It's not fully playing a roleplaying game because that potentially has additional components, such as the portions that a GM handles, and those of other players. To risk stretching the above analogy a little further, someone might sing while acting a operetta but not be participating in a full Opera. Of course analogies are never perfect but this gets the point across.

 

[Anselyn]

I ask myself the question "could I roleplay alone" and I believe I can; mechanical system is only required when dealing with others, and I don't believe it is required to roleplay.

I think that Fighting Fantasy style gamebooks enable "roleplaying alone". I realise that they do tend to have a mechanical system - to a greater or lesser extent.

However, I think that they do suffciently capture the idea of roleplaying that they are a good thing to put in any sort of starter set to introduce someone to the hobby - as has been done.

So - roleplaying alone; Yes.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Pemerton again i think you are making a semantic argument more than anything else by trying to turn everything on the term system and draw roleplay into that definition in order to deconstruct any dstinction between rp and roll play.

If it seems so, it is because it is difficult to do anything else with the circular arguments that you and Mark are making. They are nothing but semantic attempts to sharply narrow the definition of "roleplaying" to be "first person characterization".

This is parallel to Chesterton's example of the man in the insane asylum who thinks he is the King of England. You can't assail his position because it is perfectly logical within the constraints of his premise. It's logical, but emprically foolish. All you can do is show a broader world, and suggest that there is more on heaven and earth than what is dreamed of in his philosophy.

Mark disagreed violently with Hobo's couple of suggestions as to why someone would so want to narrow the definition. Meanwhile, postings in good faith to show a broader world have been met with semantic arguments and what appears from this end to to have no good purpose. So show a good purpose why "roleplaying" should be limited to first person characterization. Then we can discuss that intelligently. Otherwise, there will always remain the suspicion of a hidden agenda that can't be discussed. I think "rollplaying versus roleplaying" as a concept is emprically foolish. Show us otherwise.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Let's say that an Opera is acting and singing. Let's say acting equates to roleplaying and singing equates to (part of the game) system and Operas equate to Roleplaying Games.

Begs the questions.

 

[Mark CMG]

Begs the questions.

Funny! I used to game with two guys who you would have sworn were doing impressions of Adam Sandler's Opera Man and John Lovitz's Over-the-Top Actor.


(Out of XP for the time being. Little help!)