What exactly is "Roleplaying", Do We Think?

[pemerton]

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.

Obviously that's your prerogative. Equally, though, I don't buy your attempt to assimilate "roleplaying" - as a description of what we do in RPGs - to what strikes me as a particular style of first-person-heavy, GM-force heavy play which I regard as only one approach to RPGing, and (except with certain systems and certain GMs) not always a very rewarding approach.

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.

this is somethign I dont consider a system in the game system sense. You do it enought and it becomes very intuitive. The purpose of course isn't to simulate reality but to feel like you are there.

<snip>

if the pcs try to bluff Strahd, i am thinking in terms of what strahd values, what he wants, what he doesn't want, how well the player is making the case, how charismatic his character is, etc. It is a trade off though, because you give more weight to player performance.

I don't disupte that this is different from rolling dice. It doesn't both me whether or not you want to call it a system. It seems to me obvious that it's a process of some sort for resolving questions about the content of the shared fiction of the game, and to me "system" seems as good a word as any (and the traditional one, in our hobby) for describing such a process.

I don't at all agree that it is inherently more immersive, either as a GM - where at least on occasion, it can be very third person as I weigh up in my mind a range of considerations about the beliefs of one party, the charisma of another, and so on - or as a player, where with a GM whose conception of the situation is very different from mine the experience can be quite jarring and radically undermine my own understanding of my PC and the situation in which my PC is located.

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).

<snip>

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.

This seems to me to relate to what I posted upthread about the way a particular group uses the procedures of play to engage the fiction. If a given system doesn't engage the fiction in sufficient detail, then that is a reason to choose a better system!

The actual example you give strikes me as problematic not because of the lack of roleplaying, but because of the lack of fiction. What is actually going on in the shared fictional space? And it seems to me that, if in a game that sort of thing is routine - ie players not being interested in, and not caring to engage, the fiction, then the problem isn't the resolution system but rather a mismatch between the fiction the GM is creating (via framing scenes/situations/encounters) and the situations the players are interested in.

Alternatively, it may be that the mechanics themselves are crappy, and get in the way of the fiction or actually encourage it to drop out. It sounds like you might be describing a 3E game, and I don't really have a very good handle on how 3E's procedures are meant to be used.

Of course, there is only a finite number of systems available, and I'm not denying that your "free roleplaying" approach (what I am calling your "process" or "system) may be the best for you. In my personal experience, I often get richer and more salient detail using systems which redistribute some of the power away from the GM and onto the players, using the dice as an element of that - particularly when there are conflicts of interest between the PCs and the NPCs. As a general rule I use free roleplaying only when there are no such conflicts. The amount of first person (or third person) characterisation doesn't change signficantly from one approach to the other, in my experience.

This distinction, has existed in the hobby since at least the 80s

<snip>

And it has been embraced broadly. Do you accept that speaking in character is a different thing than not speaknig in character and instead rolling a die?" if so there is clearly a distinction. And the distinction revolves around whether or not you are immersed in your character.

My personal view is that the distinction has its origins in the mismatch between the systems available and widely played in the 80s, and the sort of RPG experiences that people wanted to have. I think it particularly derives from people wanting to play character-immersive games using Gygaxian dungeon crawl mechanics.

And from the fact that there is a difference between freeform resolution and dice rolling resolution - which there obviously is - it doesn't follw that the distinction revolves around immersion in one's character.

once the mechanics take priority, what you say in character matters less and less.

I don't agree with this at all, and I'm not sure what mechanical systems you have in mind when you assert it. If what you say is true of 3E's social mechanics that just suggests to me that they're bad mechanics.

It's certainly not true of 4e's skill challenge mechanics, for example, or of BW action resolution based on intent and task.

It is simply a distinction between two different elements of play. One leans on mechanics, the other on playing your character.

Again, in my view if your resolution system means that when you engage your system you are no longer playing your character, then you need to get a better system!

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.

Well, here are some actual play reports that involved mostly heavy system (and another one) and mostly free roleplaying - the rationale for the different treatments being primarily the one described above, of presence or absence of conflicts of interest. I'm pretty happy with where my social resolution is at at the moment, and with the way that die-based mechanical systems factor into it.

 

[pemerton]

I think we share a common, well-understood word for 'playing a role' when doing so does not involve a 'game': it's called acting. I think 'game' is implicit in roleplaying, whether it's D&D or Cops and Robbers.

Agreed.

I don't see 'playing a role' and 'engaging the system' as opposite ends of a spectrum. I see plenty of elements of system which integrate with, support and actively enhance 'playing the role'. Beliefs, Traits, Instincts and the Duel of Wits all from The Burning Wheel, extended contests in HeroWars, Keys in The Shadow of Yesterday, Moves in Apocalypse World - the examples go on and on. It's noticeable that such elements often explicitly detail the need to engage the fiction before the mechanics.

Agreed again. And I'm in that group (probably a minority, but I think the text in the rulebooks runs my way) that would add 4e skill challenges to this list. Although the rules text isn't as good as that in books like HeroWars/Quest, BW or Maelstrom Storytelling, it still makes it pretty clear that the procedure is: (1) GM states fictional situation; (2) player explains how his/her PC is engaging that situation; (3) GM specifies appropriate skill; (4) skill check is made; (5) GM describes the change in the fictional situation, based on the result of the skill check.

What's more, both systems force the player to stake something in order to play the game - if you want to roll you have to be willing not just to fail, but to lose.

So, for example, in a Duel of Wits I want to persuade the Duke to lend me 30 soldiers. He wants my fiance. Am I willing to stake my fiance to get that army I need or not? How is that less revealing of my character than a five minute 'in character speech' of whatever expedient platitudes will get me GM approval?

Compare and contrast with this: Diplomacy :: d20srd.org

It's just abstract mechanics (and bad ones at that, imo) with no mention of how diplomacy actually works at my table right now and, again, absolutely nothing at stake for the character.

I think this is one respect in which the skill challenge rules and guidelines are weak. They have to be supplemented by a particular approach to framing the situation - the GM has to threaten something the players care about that will then drive the PCs into action, and the narration of the resolution of skill checks similarly has to maintain the pressure until the challenge is resolved. (Happily, this also makes the "We have the face-man do all the talking" problem go away, because if the Diplomacy-challenged dwarf is going to look like an idiot unless he says something, then the player will step up in spite of that low number on the character sheet. Just like you make the player of the wizard use those low attack and hit point numbers by having the monsters attack the wizard too.)

But I agree that once you are setting up situations where the stakes are high, and the players will have to step up and use the mechanics or have their PCs (and thus themselves) lose what they care for, you get play which is more revealing of the characters (and, sometimes, of the players!) then "in character" speeches whose bearing on the resolution is ambiguous at best.

According to those rules my 7th level bard walks round surrounded by an almost irresistable 'zone of friendship' with speaking in character an optional extra.

I'm sure I could dig up other, equally horrific, examples. Little wonder social mechanics have such a bad reputation and people seek to exclude them from definitions of 'roleplaying'

Agreed again. I think the whole "roleplaying"/"rollplaying" distinction only makes sense in the context of people playing with bad mechanics (eg AD&D 2nd ed, in my view at least) or with mechanics that aren't well suited to their priorities for play.

The distinction also plays a role in validating the player of the Tomb of Horrors who doesn't particularly care for the dungeon crawl, but likes to feel good about writing up, and occasionally declaiming, great swathes of backstory for his/her PC. Like I said upthread, I want to take these players, shake them, and ask them what the hell they are doing wasting their time on Tomb of Horrors! Find a better system and a better scenario where playing your PC actually matters!

 

[pemerton]

Outside of the internet, anybody I've ever talked to who plays RPGs, would classify those type of players as "roleplayers".

<snip>

If you want to make Role Playing be something more broad, I would ask that you give me a decent word that means what I meant, so I can use that instead.

Acting was one such word. I think that has negative connotations, as in people who get into 1st person speech-only and have dreams of melodramtic thespianism.

This is very clear - I can see now why you don't just want to talk about acting.

Sure, we are all playing a role in a game categorized as Role Playing Game. But not all of us are "Role Playing" as in behaving a certain way because of the personality of your character, rather than the stats of our character.

So, when you ask me what's Role-Playing, I give you the definition of "behaving a certain way because of the personality of your character, rather than the stats of our character."

<snip>

I think "behaving a certain way because of the personality of our character, rather than the stats of your character" can also means saying that my PC is very protective of women and will rush to their defense if he sees them mistreated or disrespected.

<snip>

The player who defines that trait for his PC and follows it is doing something extra that another player who just moves his PC around the game space and does whatever is optimal is not doing.

I understand the distinction you are drawing here, but I'm tempted to say that the difference is between someone who is playing the game and someone who isn't. But, depending exactly on what the game is, I'm not sure who is in which category.

For example, if you're playing a scenario like Tomb of Horrors, and one player has his/her PC do whatever is expedient, while another plays his/her PC with all the flair and flourishes that you describe, then I want to say that the second player is in the wrong game. That PC doesn't belong in the ToH. Conversely, a game in which you want it to matter whether or not a PC cares for women is one in which there should also be cosequences for playing a PC as merely expedient. Some systems have mechanics to help bring this out (eg Burning Wheel with Beliefs and Instincts) but even when it is not right there in the mechanics, it is still possible to run a game so that these sorts of choices matter.

Now obviously RPGing is a social hobby, and in many groups there are going to be players with differening preferences. So compromises are made, scenarios are run in which "cares for women" matters sometimes but not always, and "expedient mercenary" has consequences sometimes but not always. But in this situation, I wouldn't say that one is more of a roleplayer than the other. That seems like just the sort of language that might upset the compromise - I mean, the whole point of the compromise is to make roleplaying an expedient mercenary a viable path to take in that particular group.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Pemerton, thanks for the in depth response. At this stage, i think it is clear we are coming at the game from very different perspectives and syles, so rather than create an en endless back and forth, i will let your responses be the last word on my position (unless someone else wants to react to my posts)--i think i have stated it enough times anyways, so no need to quote your text blocks and repeat myself again. But you mentioned skill challenges, and arguments about roll v. role aside, i would like to give you my reaction to them just so you have a better understanding of where I am coming from (not to convince you they are bad mechanics).

I agree, social skills in d20 are badly designed for a number of reasons. The two big problems i have with them are 1) the way they are worded and explained makes them too powerful in social situations 2) i feel they have a tendancy to dampen role play (which i have seen countless times at my own table). I could elaborate, but the point is they bother me because my perception that they impact role play and have too great an effect on NPCs (though arguably they can vut both ways). That said, skill challenges triubled me even more. I didn't like d20 social skills but they were fairly easy to connect to (in your words) the in game fiction. "i tell the duke these are not the kobolds you are looking for"--"okay, make a bluff roll"

I have a feeling you may dislike this word, but it captures how i feel aout skill challenges and many other aspects of 4E: i find the skill challenge process (with adding successes) to be highly dissociative. I can see how some would argue or feel skill challenges are a more realistic way to handle non combat challenges, i just dont find this to be the case when i have encountered them as a player, read about the in the core books, or seen them in a module. I have found this to be especially true in investigative adventures where dms have used skill challenges. To me the issue is it feels like a minigame that takes my focus away from the interaction with setting and characters, and it doesn't always feel like it connects well to what is going on in the game.

Just to be clear, i am not suggesting that others should feel the way i do, ust giving my opinion, so pemerton can have a better understanding of what I want in a game.

 

[Balesir]

I would xp for the clarity, even though I disagree strongly (so the rest of this post is a general response to all those who have voiced a similar opinion...)

Likewise: for both you and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] my 'XP drop light' only sporadically goes green...

I think we share a common, well-understood word for 'playing a role' when doing so does not involve a 'game': it's called acting.

I don't agree with the specifics, here, sorry. "Acting" is playing a part, not playing a role. Improv acting may get close, but there you start to get "conventions" that have a similar role to "systems" (if I understand improv correctly).

Here's a sample from The Duel of Wits mechanics (Burning Wheel Gold, p393):

When playing actions, you must speak your part. Spitting out moves in a robotic fashion is not a viable use of these mechanics. The arguments must be made. Of course, no-one expects you to be eloquent, so just the main thrust or a simple retort usually suffices (although a little embellishment is nice).
​

(my bold) How much clearer could it be that the 'playing the role' and 'the system' are integrated?

I would say "closely coupled" rather than "integrated". This very phrase:

"Spitting out moves in a robotic fashion is not a viable use of these mechanics"

...breaks down to show what I mean. The "robotic fashion" may not be not a viable use of the mechanics - but it is a possible use of them, because they are separate from what comes before. Both "robotic spitting out" or "speaking your part" are uses of "these mechanics" because other mechanics are possible with either prelude.

As I would describe it, one prelude involves roleplaying, the other might or might not - but the mechanic - either this one or another one - sits seperately from that.

Here's Apocalypse World, p12:

The rules for moves is to do it, do it. In order for it to be a move and for the player to roll dice the character has to do something that counts as a move....

...There are two ways they sometimes don't line up and it is your job as MC to deal with them.

First is when a player says only that her character makes a move without having her character take any such action. For instance "I go aggro on him." Your answers should be "Cool. What do you do?" "I try to seduce him." "Cool, what do you do?"

​

(author's bold. Note: going aggro and seduction are both 'social' moves).

I don't know enough of Apocalypse World to comment on this, really. It sounds like an admonition to do things a specific way for this game, rather than a definition of "what roleplaying is", to me, but that may be simply this section of text taken out of its context (of which I am ignorant).

In both cases the texts explicitly call out the need for the character (not the player) to drive the mechanics.

Right - which argues, once again, for the split I am advocating, here. "Roleplaying" is something the player does; "driving the system" is something the character's (intended) actions do. Hence the split: the player, roleplaying the character, decides what the character's intentions are, then the characters (attempted) actions invoke the system. The change in the character's situation in the game world then informs further roleplaying, and thus the two things are closely coupled.

What's more, both systems force the player to stake something in order to play the game - if you want to roll you have to be willing not just to fail, but to lose.

So, for example, in a Duel of Wits I want to persuade the Duke to lend me 30 soldiers. He wants my fiance. Am I willing to stake my fiance to get that army I need or not? How is that less revealing of my character than a five minute 'in character speech' of whatever expedient platitudes will get me GM approval?

The decision to stake your fiancee (or not) is roleplaying; whether this means you get the soldiers or lose the fiancee will be at least partly decided by system (because it will not entirely be resolved by character decisions).

Compare and contrast with this: Diplomacy :: d20srd.org

Heh, well, the 3E method of handling social skills generally (and diplomacy especially) were just bad from every angle... No argument, there.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I don't agree with the specifics, here, sorry. "Acting" is playing a part, not playing a role. Improv acting may get close, but there you start to get "conventions" that have a similar role to "systems" (if I understand improv correctly).

Still sounds like characterization to me. From most narrow to broadest in scope: Acting -> Characterization -> Roleplaying. And of course there are other arrows besides acting and characterization that feed into the next level.

Part of the difficulty is that a lot of these other things are fluid. For example, when my wife wears one of the LotR elven leaf broaches when playing a particular elf, you could say that is:

• A prop to supplement acting.
• A prop to supplement characterization directly.
• Roleplaying via prop.

And with any one of those, you'd be correct part of the time and not at others. The prop can be anything from a prod to speak in character, to a prod to qualify the character to a direct method of invoking the shared imagined space for herself and the rest of the group--independent of any other means going on at the time.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

My request for a purpose for why "roleplay versus rollplay" is a useful construct seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle. It doesn't have to be Bedrockgames. Anyone defending that position is welcome to it.

 

[howandwhy99]

Historically speaking role playing in TTRPGs clusters around two different ideas depending upon the school of thought believed in. Yeah, belief systems have something to do with faith, but I think we can discount any formal religious institutions claiming ground here.


#1. Role playing is pretending to be someone other than your self.
#2. Role playing is performing a social role as one's self whether falsely or honestly.

#1 goes on from here to more sophisticated definitions like "expressing ideas you do no believe in" usually with the increasingly unnecessary historic appendage of "character" tacked on for whatever that means to the listener.


Theater has become our dominant cultural paradigm, so definition #1 is largely accepted as "the way things really are" even though a diehard believer would not want it phrased in those terms. From this perspective Balesir's definition in the original post is a near recitation of the answer to "What is Role Playing?" as it stems from our present cultural authorities. The pretending half in #2 is actually #1 and never otherwise. To believe otherwise is to be deluded, at least when viewed from within this belief system.

For TTRPGs our hobby began under #2 and moved to #1 in the early 1980s. However we spent the first 30+ years designing games as puzzles, often half completed, with the blueprints for those puzzles distributed openly to players and GMs alike - game masters being the relaters of the puzzle. Some elements like adventures were and still are sold with what some may call "delusional" forewards claiming "spoilers" for players if they read any further.

What we have today is an uneasy mix of styles with different self-appointed authorities claiming more or less singular interpretations of what role playing is. And so, by controlling others thoughts and speech regarding role playing some may claim control over the play and design of RPGs as well. At least this is a popular belief among those who hold power-centered philosophies. (Only they know what freedom is and we will receive it.)

My own idea is to very much accept all comers and ideas and disavow any absolute definitions for role playing games. That goes not just for its practice but for how we refer to it, think it, play it, design for it, or distribute it. For every game with "conflict resolution" there should be game with obviously no such thing in it. For every game seeking "character immersion" there should be a game where it is utterly irrelevant.

I think we can get past trying to close people within mental boxes. Has anyone mentioned the "one true definition" of role playing in this thread yet? I doubt it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

My request for a purpose for why "roleplay versus rollplay" is a useful construct seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle. It doesn't have to be Bedrockgames. Anyone defending that position is welcome to it.

I don't really want to backtrack on my last word statement in the other post so I will try to address this briefly. First what I was really defending was a particular meaning of Roleplaying and roleplay, not the broad meaning. A lot of times you hear people say "we had a role play heavy session last night" or "I expect to see some real role playing from you guys". In the groups I game with and have gamed with, this has always generally meant getting really character through things like first person dialogue and all the other stuff we discussed. And it contrasts (for us) playing by rolling dice for social skill checks with minimal in character dialogue or focusing entirely on combat and minigames in the system. So for me it has always been a useful distinction because in this context it is a term we all grasp and know what it means. And it therefore assists my groups in communicating and setting expectations.

 

[chaochou]

I would say "closely coupled" rather than "integrated".

Thanks for the reply. I enjoyed it.

I'm not going to explore the divide between our posts, simply because I think the divide is wafer thin and there's fertile common ground.

My sweater is made of thread - maybe those threads are closely coupled, maybe they're integrated. In my first post in this thread I defined roleplaying as: fiction ----> system ----> fiction. I think roleplaying is a back and forth, back and forth between the two, like the thread which makes my sweater.

(The anology came up with opera, but I dislike opera so I'm not going there.)

However, I think it's clear roleplaying isn't fiction - fiction - fiction (a film or book or radio play) and equally clear it isn't system - system - system (chess or bridge).

Some posters reject that definition on the basis (I think) of their experiences with social mechanics which, when poorly explained or implemented in a certain way, can lead to this:

no fictional input -----> system -----> fiction

My objection is that not all social mechanics create that break. I fully agree that the above is not roleplaying at the momet it happens. However, I see the of implementation as the cause, not social mechanics as a whole, and so I cited two examples of social mechanics (BW and AW) which state in the clearest possilble terms not to allow the above to happen.

Others reject fiction - system - fiction (I think) because it seems like a broad and vague use of the word 'system'. In my use it means 'Process used to decide what happens in the game'. Others say system has a different common meaning for rules like to hit modifiers and d20+skill+mods vs DC.

I say system does more than that. It distributes authority in a new way. AD&D (or Vampire, RQ etc) gives the GM authority which he doesn't have with friends in the pub, or when choosing curtains with his wife. GM fiat is a product of system, as is narrative control for players.

System also sets expectations on genre and role. AD&D says "This is a game of swords and sorcery". Traveller is "set against a backdrop drawn from adventure-oriented science fiction." Those aren't 'rules' as such, but they are part of the system - the bit which will likely earn you black looks and rolling eyes if you try to invent the digital watch in D&D or a +5 Holy Avenger in Traveller.

And I guess that ends this rambling addendum to my original definition. I hope it is at least clear or, at miminum, a useful basis for discussion.