D&D 5E What is the "role" in roleplaying

[TwoSix]

BW is more hardcore, the "indie" equivalent of Gyagxian skilled play: not only is personality/colour a key element of function, but the player is expected to work it hard, and there is definitely such a thing as doing it better or worse. Hence why I think BW can be quite a challenging game for players (far more demanding than 4e D&D or MHRP).

I don't know how Monsterhearts fits into that picture, but I hope the picture makes some sort of sense.

No, that makes sense. "Skilled" play, in the vein of Basic D&D and BW, are defined by reward and progression systems tied to the demonstration of player skill. That can be knowing the proper procedures of dungeon exploration to gain XP and magical items, or the proper framing of Beliefs and Instincts in the context of a character's skills to earn Artha.

I would say in those systems, understanding and playing to the mechanical "role" is more necessary to actually accumulate the necessary rewards. Since the endpoint of any game is most likely nebulous, fulfilling your "role" allows the player to have a personal play goal that will most likely to group success and therefore rewards. For example, you can go into level 1 of a dungeon playing a cleric having no clue as to how to actually solve the dungeon, but you know if you fulfill your role of turning undead and healing up injured characters, your group is more likely to have success in getting to level 2 of that dungeon. Likewise, you might not know exactly what storyline your orc is going to embark on, but if you go around killing and Hating things, that will probably help the Artha roll in.

 

[TwoSix]

It's one thing to have a house rule that drawing from Chance is optional, or that taxes are accumulated as free-parking cash. But, how far would you get in Monopoly with: "who else is staying at the hotel? Anyone rich? I steal their jewels!"

That's actually a pretty interesting question. I feel like you could make the argument that if you had a draft of rules that could let you break into houses and hotels to steal money, determined by various dice rolls, then you'd still be playing a (wildly outlandish) variant of Monopoly. Whereas if you had an outside arbitrator refereeing the game who decided whether the robbing of the hotel succeeded or failed, you'd be drifting into a freeform roleplaying game with the Monopoly board as a prop.

As a gross generalization, the presence of win conditions is more of a board game things, and the presence of an outside referee is more of a roleplaying game thing.

 

[Corwin]

...and the presence of an outside referee is more of a roleplaying game thing.

And sports! Which can only mean that RPGs and sports are more alike than we thought! Why did the jocks always beat me up in school?! We were kindred spirits!

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

It's one thing to have a house rule that drawing from Chance is optional, or that taxes are accumulated as free-parking cash. But, how far would you get in Monopoly with: "who else is staying at the hotel? Anyone rich? I steal their jewels!"

Making up a rule about committing theft on a developed property is no different than the other rules changes you mention.

What is different is that you've added personality in your approach to doing so, which falls in line with my original statement about what sets RPGs and board games apart.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

And sports! Which can only mean that RPGs and sports are more alike than we thought! Why did the jocks always beat me up in school?! We were kindred spirits!

Imagine being a jock and still having the jocks try to beat you up in school because you play RPGs... and their girlfriends keep asking you for hair-care advice, and you're a musician but you like something besides country, and assorted other reasons that all boil down to "you're different and it makes me angry."

 

[pemerton]

I'm not seeing a difference. Perhaps it is your example occluding the point you were trying to make, because the reason a player can burn a door in D&D is because the game has rules to handle that "move"

Which edition are you referring to? In AD&D and B/X there is no "set things on fire" move described or defined in any of the books (except as an element of naval combat). Setting doors alight, chopping them down, surfing doors over the super-tetanus pits in White Plume Mountain, asking a NPC what her favourite breakfast is - these are all feasible moves in a RPG, but not in a boardgame that hasn't predefined them.

The range of possible moves in a boardgame is set by the rules. The range of possible action declarations in a RPG is set primarily by the shared fiction. (There are some ultra-simulationist games that do their best to make these two states of affairs equivalent - the one I know best is Rolemaster - but even they don't get there, and the fact that they are RPGs is shown by the fact that the fiction is the ultimate determinant of what it is possible for players to have their "playing piece" attempt.)

 

[Jester David]

The second option. No question.

I came in here thinking this was a false dichotomy, like [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] says earlier.
Then it clicked on me that it wasn't. The second choice is the only choice that makes any sense in terms of the hobby.

If we define the "role" in RPG as "playing a character that performs a certain function" then that means any game where there are set roles are an RPG. Like, say, Pandemic. Those are even called roles in that game.
However, that definition precludes any storytelling game where characters lack a set function or responsibility. That inludes games such as GURPs, FATE, Dread, Legend of the 5 Rings, Serenity, Marvel Heroic, Vampire / World of Darkness, Shadows of Esteren, the Dead, Heroes Unlimited. Class-less RPGs.
(Heck, pretty much every "RPG" on my shelf that isn't a flavor of D&D or built upon the d20 system.)

Fulfiling a certain class role or function in a party (the tank, the face) might be handy in designing a party at the table. Creating a strong group with diverse skills. But it doesn't define the "role" in RPGs. Because you're still playing the game even if you don't do that.
I was going to say that being able to customize abilities and mechanical strengths - having different abilities depending on your character from other characters - would also be a requirement. But then I remember I *just* ran a rocking game of Dread this past Saturday and all character in that are mechanically equal (with player skill and manual dexterity mattering more than character skill). And that is totally an RPG.

However, I would argue that just accepting the role of a named character is not enough to qualify as an "RPG". Otherwise games like Clue or even Candyland would qualify.
So to be an RPG it is not enough for you to have a named character, the game must assume you're adopting the persona of that character, speaking for them and making decisions based on their personality. You need not act or speak in silly voices, but if you're not stepping into the shoes of your character, I would argue you're not fulfiling the requirements of the "role" part of the RPG.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It's interesting to see how this definition has evolved over time.

In OD&D, "character," "role," "class," "player" and more are used basically interchangeably to refer to what we'd now probably refer to as class. It's clear it's coming from a sort of "talking to people who already know what we mean" place, aimed squarely at minis gamers, though it goes on at length about how minis aren't required. No strong distinction is here between player and character and class.

1e is the where the language gets cleaned up and explicit, distinguishing "players," "characters," and "class" as all different things. We also have this:

As a role player, you become Falstaff the fighter. You know how strong, intelligent, wise, healthy, dexterous and, relatively speaking, how commanding a personality you have. Details as to your appearance your body proportions, and your history can be produced by you or the Dungeon Master. You act out the game as this character, staying within your "godgiven abilities", and as molded by your philosophical and moral ethics (called alignment). You interact with your fellow role players, not as Jim and Bob and Mary who work at the office together, but as Falstaff the fighter, Angore the cleric, and Filmar, the mistress of magic! The Dungeon Master will act the parts of "everyone else", and will present to you a variety of new characters to talk with, drink with, gamble with, adventure with, and often fight with! Each of you will become an artful thespian as time goes by-and you will acquire gold, magic items, and great renown as you become Falstaff the Invincible!

....which is explicitly asking you to play a role in the "personality" sense, and links that pretty clearly with defining a "role-playing game."

In Holmes Basic, this language is very similar to OD&D, complete with a lack of description about what an RPG is, but is cleaned up a bit to refer to "characters" pretty consistently, indicating that by this point, it was distinct.

Red-box basic follows on from 1e:

This is a role-playing game. That means that you will be like an actor, imagining that you are someone else, and pretending to be that character. You won’t need a stage, though, and you won’t need costumes or scripts. You only need to imagine.

2e has a rather lengthy "turn Snakes & Ladders into an RPG" analogy that specifies:

This is the heart of role-playing. The character adopts the role of a character and guides that character through an adventure. The player makes decisions, interacts with other characters and players, and, essentially, "pretends" to be his character during the course of the game. That doesn't mean the player must jump up and down, dash around, and act like his character. It means that whenever the character is called on to do something or make a decision, the player pretends that he is in that situation and chooses and appropriate course of action.

Not as gung-ho about turning everyone into master thespians as Gygax was, I guess, but very much explicitly in the realm of "pretend you are a fictional personality."

3e mentions that the D&D game is "part acting," and says that your character is "just like the heroes of a book or movie."

It's your job to describe what your character is like, how he or she relates to the other adventurers, and act accordingly. You can play a serious paladin or a wisecracking rogue, a reckless barbarian or a cautious wizard. With your character in mind, respond to each situation as it comes up.

4e has a very similar blurb:

When you play your D&D character, you put yourself into your character’s shoes and make decisions as if you were that character. You decide which door your character opens next. You decide whether to attack a monster, to negotiate with a villain, or to attempt a dangerous quest. You can make these decisions based on your character’s personality, motivations, and goals, and you can even speak or act in character if you like. You have almost limitless control over what your character can do and say in the game.

5e's quite succinct about it:

It's about picturing the towering castle beneath the stormy night sky and imagining how a fantasy adventurer might react to the challenges that scene presents.

...so it seems to me that since the dawn of the term "role-playing game," it has distinguished itself from other kinds of games primarily by talking about the personas of characters, not their functions. OD&D didn't make a clear distinction between them, and sort of mushed them all together, which I think is honest enough when you don't yet have a framework for seeing how your game is distinct from the minis wargames it's based on.

 

[pemerton]

1e is the where the language gets cleaned up and explicit, distinguishing "players," "characters," and "class" as all different things. We also have this:

As a role player, you become Falstaff the fighter. You know how strong, intelligent, wise, healthy, dexterous and, relatively speaking, how commanding a personality you have. Details as to your appearance your body proportions, and your history can be produced by you or the Dungeon Master. You act out the game as this character, staying within your "godgiven abilities", and as molded by your philosophical and moral ethics (called alignment). You interact with your fellow role players, not as Jim and Bob and Mary who work at the office together, but as Falstaff the fighter, Angore the cleric, and Filmar, the mistress of magic! The Dungeon Master will act the parts of "everyone else", and will present to you a variety of new characters to talk with, drink with, gamble with, adventure with, and often fight with! Each of you will become an artful thespian as time goes by-and you will acquire gold, magic items, and great renown as you become Falstaff the Invincible!

....which is explicitly asking you to play a role in the "personality" sense, and links that pretty clearly with defining a "role-playing game."

I don't see where it mentions personality at all.

Falstaff has "god given" abilities, that is, ability scores. An alignment. His/her participation in the game ("acting out") takes place by reference to these. Interaction with fellow players and characters is mediated via character class (fighter, cleric, MU). His/her activities are defined in functional terms - primarily acquiring gold and other treasure and renown (ie XP), which is likely to involve some fighting.

Nothing in the description of Falstaff the fighter gives any indication that a character with the same stats, alignment and class would engage the game differently.

As far as appearance and history are concerned - which are the only nods to the AD&D 2nd ed-style "personality" - these are expressly flagged as something that might be provided by the referee rather than the player.

it seems to me that since the dawn of the term "role-playing game," it has distinguished itself from other kinds of games primarily by talking about the personas of characters, not their functions.

Clearly this is what AD&D 2nd ed does, as I noted in the OP. But I don't think that Gygax's PHB does at all. I haven't gone back to look at Moldvay Basic (I'm guessing, but not sure, that your quote is from Mentzer).

A game has rules, victory conditions, etc. Good games allow for some creativity, sure, but knowing what you're supposed to do to "win" is part of the equation. Also, not winning doesn't mean you didn't have fun. I've gotten my butt handed to me in many games and still have fun. So, what makes a Role Playing Game different?

I don't think that classic D&D is that different in this respect. It has fairly clear - though somewhat open-ended - win conditions, namely, earning XP by getting the treasure out of the dungeon.

I've got an old copy of HeroQuest. We quickly figured out that the Mage goes in the corner, the Barbarian stands in the open, the Elf gets a ranged weapon, and the Dwarf searches for traps. We all knew our functional roles. If that's the key to being a Role Playing Game, then HeroQuest is a Role Playing Game.

<snip>

the D&D rules could be used for an advanced HeroQuest game.

<snip>

Instead, I maintain that the persona role is what makes a Role Playing Game a Role playing game.

If we define the "role" in RPG as "playing a character that performs a certain function" then that means any game where there are set roles are an RPG.

<snip>

However, that definition precludes any storytelling game where characters lack a set function or responsibility. That inludes games such as GURPs, FATE, Dread, Legend of the 5 Rings, Serenity, Marvel Heroic, Vampire / World of Darkness, Shadows of Esteren, the Dead, Heroes Unlimited. Class-less RPGs.

I continue to think that the most distinctive thing about a RPG is that the fiction matters to the resolution. This is what differentiates it from miniatures skirmishing, board games, etc.

Because the fiction involves a particular person (the PC), I think it's inevitable that the personality/motivations of that PC will emerge in some fashion, even if very attenuated, as part of that fiction. But this can be, and I think often is, a byproduct of playing in the functional sense.

As far as the other games you mention are concerned, this relates to [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION]'s question upthread about more indie-style RPGs. I can't comment on all the games you mention, but in Marvel Heroic RP (which I've been running a bit recently) I think the mechanics are intended to make personality/colour part of the character's function. (Hence mechanics like Distinctions, Milestones, etc.) So performing the character's function will inevitably bring the character's personality to the fore, and perhaps lead to it changing (eg in my MHRP game, Nightcrawler ended up forsaking his Catholicism under Wolverine's more cynical influence, taking Mental trauma in the process). The colour of the characters is not mere colour; and it is not a factor primarily just in free roleplaying or in choosing what action to declare. It matters to resolution.

I suspect Fate might have a comparable dynamic, but I've never played it, just read it.

Some of those games might make it quite hard to establish clear functions for PCs. That would tend to suggest that they're more enjoyable for those who think the 2nd ed AD&D description of roleplaying is more apt than Gyagx's.

A successful RPG campaign will see the PCs have compatible functional roles, but this isn't because the functional roles are the R in RPG. It's because going dungeon-delving with a butcher, baker, and candlestick maker is going to be short, bloody, and not particularly interesting.

<snip>

given that both persona roles and functional roles exist in an RPG whether one should start with the persona and see which function he gravitates towards, in play, or should the group start with assumptions (implicit or explicit) about what functions need to be filled and each player is responsible for creating a persona that fills one.

<snip>

I'm more concerned with having interesting personas because I assume the functions will either sort themselves out

<snip>

If you're playing a published adventure, you probably want to at least give a nod towards covering your bases.

I think this raises a slightly separate point - namely, if "roles" are functions then who gets to choose the functions? It also relates to [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION]'s question upthread about more indie-style RPGs.

Clearly some groups approach this issue from the point of view of a pre-given list of functions that have to be filled. This is especially significant if the content/focus of the scenario or campaign has been determined in advance according to some fairly generic template (eg dungeon delving, or a typical published adventure).

But a game or a group might approach "role" primarily in terms of function/capacities and also choose their own functions, expecting that the GM will then run adventures that suit the particular characters the players have come up with. The all-thief party in AD&D is one example of this. This is also how I've always run Rolemaster: the players build the PCs they want - which are defined in very intricate mechanical terms - and then I build the scenario around that. There is no pre-set list of functions, but that doesn't mean that the "functional" approach to RPGing can't be adopted.

 

[Mercule]

I don't see where it mentions personality at all.

See... At this point, I have to conclude that we're just not using words in the same way. We're pretty much down to dictionary definition level stuff, at this point. Even if we discard anything Gygax says -- while I respect the heck out of the guy, he's not the final arbiter of what an RPG is -- we still have this:

I continue to think that the most distinctive thing about a RPG is that the fiction matters to the resolution.

On this, we agree. But, we're back to definitions.

I understand the persona role to be the fiction.

I understand the functional role, so far as it is separable from the persona, to be the "gamey" element.

So many people, in this thread, have said "both" and this is truly the case. But.... The core question of the poll and original post pretty much demands that we pick one. Basically, the only meaningful way I can read the question is, "What is role playing: a) focus on the fiction or b) focus on the game mechanics?" I absolutely, positively, without reservation choose (a). I genuinely can't fathom how this is really even a conversation.

The only way I can even squint and make sense of it is this: All people, real or imaginary, are largely defined by how they relate to the world around them. When you get multiple people together to form a team, they tend to fill certain functional niches. This is especially true of high-performing teams. The exact niches people gravitate to and perform well is largely a matter of personality and natural ability.

You can try to separate out the functional niches and the personalities, but it's very artificial. The end result is that you have people without context to define them and functions without life. The former are still personas, just somewhat bland. The latter have no fiction to support them.