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

[Tony Vargas]

The poll doesn't ask "What is role playing?" It asks "How do you primarily think of roleplaying?"

It still sounds like "let's draw some battle-lines" to me.

 

[Henry]

While I also see no need to separate the two, when I primarily think of roleplaying, i think of function before aesthetics, because an RPG is, first and foremost, a game. Am I playing a character that meaningfully supports the group? Am I at the least supporting one of the three pillars of the experience (exploration, social, combat)? AFTER that, if i play a person with distinct goals and motivations, that's an added layer of the fun, not the primary.

And I have to agree with wedgski, I've seen tabls more hurt by lack of functional roles than I haves lack of distinct personality.

It's a bit like a business: you can have a business with sound functional management where all management positions are competently covered, and that business will succeed; on the other hand what builds joy to work there and a sense of family is when compassion and community are included.

On the Gripping hand, a business with a bunch of cool people and engaging circumstances is fun, but they more than likely won't survive a year if they're incompetent at their jobs - much like a lot of the dot commstartups in the nineties.

 

[Mercule]

As I read Gygax's AD&D rulebooks, the key elements of the fiction are "You're in a narrow dungeon corridor", "You're in a dark room with a stream flowing through it", "You see a corroded tube in the stream", etc. Not "You're wearing yellow and are afraid of spiders".

Meh, kind of. Gygax was explaining how to play a game. He was also a very tactical thinker. Thus, he focused on the gamist and strategic bits. He was also more inclined to favor DMs creating home brew worlds, so he wasn't inclined to throw tons of coherent fiction at the reader.

On the other hand, one of the things that a lot of us grognards miss is the "Gygaxian prose", which is filled with anecdotes and random fiction. Gary had a way of exciting the imagination that, quite frankly, doesn't exist in 5E. Instead, we've got a focus on a single, well defined setting. In 5E, you're asked which of the five factions do you want to belong to. In AD&D, Gary had breadcrumbs scattered all over the place that begged the participants to flesh something out. When comparing 5E to 1E, I still long for the pull I felt to create interesting new personas, just to follow a half-baked crumb that he dropped. While 5E is still a fun game, it replaces the vibrancy of the undiscovered with a staid list of options (roles, if you will) that can be recombined, but are generally known.

As for the "I wear yellow and am afraid of spiders", those were the exact sort of traits I saw on 1E characters. I remember the anti-paladin who wore sky blue full plate, the necromancer who rode on a couch carried by zombies, the quarter-elf whose father was corrupted by an evil artifact, the pacifist ranger, the other ranger who was afraid of goblinoids, and 2nd level necromancer who had all the PCs convinced he was a lich -- through roleplaying his persona.

But we get a lot of interaction with the shared fiction - poking things, climbing things, looking at things, trying to grab the spider and hurl it to the ground, etc - it's just that all that interaction is defined in functional terms: activities to which the players turn their characters.

The bolded part really confuses me. Are you saying that, because my character swings a sword, I'm now engaged in a "functional role"? I've read that line several times, now. I keep thinking I have to be reading it wrong, but I don't see any other way to take it.

If this is, in fact, what you mean, I think we're done here. I guess I have to agree that roleplaying requires one (or one's character) to take functional actions.

But in D&D the game doesn't contrast with the fiction. Playing the game is engaging the fiction. If you can define your game moves in purely mechanical terms, without reference to the fiction at all, then it's not RPGing. D&D combat sometimes comes close to this (attack, damage, AC, etc are all defined in purely mechanical terms) but its terrain and movement/positioning rules involve adjudicating the fiction.

Agreed, which is why I said they can't really be separable. The interaction with the fiction only exists because of the persona.

The poll doesn't ask "What is role playing?" It asks "How do you primarily think of roleplaying?"

True. In that case, I still think of roleplaying as being about the persona. Any functional roles are purely a consequence of the persona.

The OP even went into some detail to elaborate the two ways of thinking about roleplaying, and to posit some ways in which the functional approach might bleed into the personality approach.

Most of the "detail" involved an "appeal to authority" vis-a-vis quotes from Gygax. I provided some opposing quotes, and I believe others did, as well. Additionally, I don't think that Gary is the final arbiter of what is and is not roleplaying. He may have birthed (or, at least, midwived) the hobby, but it has grown up.

Building on those conjectures about "bleeding" in the OP, I'm also - but this is somewhat secondary - arguing that "function" is how "role" was presented in some early game texts, but that there is a change in that presentation somewhere in the mid-80s. That historical argument is interesting to me, but secondary to the premise and question of the thread.

My belief on the history is that a certain amount of it is due to the hobby being young -- the archetypes were still archetypes, not cliches. The early game was also closer to its war gaming roots and hadn't matured, yet. Even then, there's plenty of evidence to indicate that Gary and company injected quite a bit of persona into what they were doing.

Actually, come to think of it, the further back I go into my gaming history, the less I see my group concerned with functional roles. I didn't see a cleric played until the late 1990s, as far as I recall. No one I played with liked them. Only one person in any given group typically wanted to bother with magic-users, either. So, we had the fighter on the left, the fighter on the right, the ranger, and (maybe) the thief. Functional niche wasn't even a consideration. We just adjusted our tactics/strategy. It's only been since sometime in 3E that my group has made an effort to take function into consideration -- most likely because the D&D team has made efforts to balance each functional role against the others.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I didn't see a cleric played until the late 1990s, as far as I recall. No one I played with liked them.

No one much liked clerics in the olden days. That didn't stop people (usually the last person to join the group) from playing them, because they were so vital to the playability of the game.

(I recall, vividly, the /one/ player I knew back in the day who actually liked playing the cleric, and his favorite cleric was evil.) ... (OK, there may also have been the player who just got used to jumping on the cleric grenade and made the most of it.)

. So, we had the fighter on the left, the fighter on the right, the ranger, and (maybe) the thief. Functional niche wasn't even a consideration. We just adjusted our tactics/strategy.

'Adjusted?' To what? Take on one kobold at a time and retreat for a week?

I get that everyone played AD&D differently, I really do, I've often made a point of it - but that is is just...

...just...

... it feels like what Vincini thought 'inconceivable' meant.




Seriously, though, fighter, ranger, thief, they each had their traditional functions (frontliner, tracking, getting killed by traps), and each certainly must have been functional in the context of that super-slow-motion, weeks-of-resting between fights, 'adventuring' party (sorry, I know I said 'seriously' but I just couldn't keep it up...
...the very idea....
...sorry - I'll shut up now).

 

[Jester David]

It's not a far cry, at all, it's directly supportive of it. Not only that, but having some function (the OP used function, rather than 'role' IIRC, role having both the baggage of the R in RPG, which is in question, and of 4e formal roles), is prettymuch inevitable. Unless your character is utterly passive (even then it might have some sort of observer or victim function in the story) and/or utterly useless, neither of which is typical.

It's a pretty big leap to say "your character has a different mechanic than another character" to "your character has an entirely different function than other characters".

First, it varies too much to be a useful qualifier. It's too broad. It varies from something as concrete as 4e's "you're the controler and do AoEs and crowd control" to "you're the face and charm people" to "you're the rider whose good at anything related to horses".

Second, it overlaps too much with board games and (non-RPG) video games. Like entirely.

Third, not every game supports that; it'd be easy to make a Fate character whose aspects are unrelated to their role. And unless you make a party together, sometimes your function in the group is not always the function you designed your character for.


Yes, I agree that roles can be important in the game. Because they're a big part of narrative conventions. Roles are all over TV tropes. The 5 Man Band trope. Ensemble dramas often used roles as a shorthand. Leverage is a textbook example. And character at the table very often fill certain roles - especially in D&D and D&D-esque games with hard coded classes.

But it's a stretch to say the "role" in "role-playing games" comes from filling a role/ function in the party.

(It's even more a stretch on the part of the OP to attribute the term "roleplaying game" to Gygax, just because they were used in the 1st Edition AD&D books, when the origins of the term are lost to time, don't appear in the OD&D books, and appear in use easily 15 years before D&D exists.)

By the same token, you can completely avoid having any sort of personality for the pawn you're using in a game, as in a boardgame.

Intent is a huge thing here. Intent and expectation.

You can play Clue and roleplay. You can adopt the persona of Professor Plum as you play. And you can RP your heart out in tactical miniature combat games like Descent or BattleTech. You could even protray your generally faceless wizard in Magic the Gathering (or trainer in Pokemon). But that's not the expectation, so they're not RPGs. That's not the baseline.

You can play bob the human fighter as a pog that is moved from battle to battle, or run D&D like a series of tactical battles. But that's not the norm or the baseline. Therefore it isn't useful in defining the game.

Similarly, LARPing also exists and overlaps with RPGs. But I wouldn't classify dressing up, moving around a real world space, or combat with foam weapons in the definition of RPGs either.

 

[Mercule]

Seriously, though, fighter, ranger, thief, they each had their traditional functions (frontliner, tracking, getting killed by traps), and each certainly must have been functional in the context of that super-slow-motion, weeks-of-resting between fights, 'adventuring' party (sorry, I know I said 'seriously' but I just couldn't keep it up...
...the very idea....
...sorry - I'll shut up now).

Haha. There were a couple of TPKs. There were also a couple of druids, but no one really took to them. I think we had one bard.

When I DMed, I suspect I was a bit more free with healing potions, but can't remember. I know one group allied themselves closely with a temple and just did their best to make it back regularly.

As a player, I almost always played a ranger or thief. In either case, I got extremely good at kiting (as the kids would call it) and making the most of stealth. The first few levels were always about getting around things, rather than through them.

Edit: It's also quite possible that some schmuck got stuck with the Cleric and they were always so bland that I don't remember it. Hmm... Maybe that's what kept getting handed to the newbies who never returned.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's a pretty big leap to say "your character has a different mechanic than another character" to "your character has an entirely different function than other characters".

I don't see the necessity of the leap. As long as your character has a function. If he doesn't, what's he doin' hanging around with folks what have things to do?

Second, it overlaps too much with board games and (non-RPG) video games. Like entirely.

That's the point. As a sole arbiter of what constitutes the R in RPG, functionality doesn't cut it. Pawns in a board game have functionality.

By the same token, portraying a personality as sole arbiter of what constitutes R in RPG doesn't cut it. An actor reciting the same lines every night and twice on sundays is doing that.

But, put 'em both together and you have a Role in the RPG sense: a meaningful, realized character.

Third, not every game supports that; it'd be easy to make a Fate character whose aspects are unrelated to their role.

Role is what we're trying to define, so that's not helpful. Aspects unrelated to function or personality? I don't think so. Aspects can very neatly and flexibly cover both.

And unless you make a party together, sometimes your function in the group is not always the function you designed your character for.

Illustrative of the scope of RPGs.

But it's a stretch to say the "role" in "role-playing games" comes from filling a role/ function in the party.

It's a stretch to say it does so exclusively. It's also a stretch to say that personality does so exclusively. Put 'em together and you start to have something.

You can play Clue and roleplay. You can adopt the persona of Professor Plum as you play.

You mean you can act out the persona (the definition of role is what's at issue). IT'd be a stretch to say you're roleplaying, because there's not only no difference difference among the personas, there's no functional difference in how they're played. You just go through the motions of the board game.

You can speak in character all you like, if the character makes no difference, it's just an affectation. ;P

And you can RP your heart out in tactical miniature combat games like Descent or BattleTech.

In that case, you probably /can/ shade into RP, because you are making decisions that lead to the role being functional as well as an unconnected portrayal. Battletech did spawn an actual RPG. A crappy one, but still... ;P

You can play bob the human fighter as a pog that is moved from battle to battle, or run D&D like a series of tactical battles.

To an extent, you could, but you'd be ignoring chunks of the game. 3 of his stats, his skills, many of the less formal options available in combat, etc.

Similarly, LARPing also exists and overlaps with RPGs. But I wouldn't classify dressing up, moving around a real world space, or combat with foam weapons in the definition of RPGs either.

While TT and Live-action have their differences, they're both much more clearly RPGs than, say, CRPGs or MMOs.

 

[Jester David]

I don't see the necessity of the leap. As long as your character has a function. If he doesn't, what's he doin' hanging around with folks what have things to do?

Hanging with friends. Thrust into a tough situation. What was Arthur Dent doing with Ford Prefect?

That's the point. As a sole arbiter of what constitutes the R in RPG, functionality doesn't cut it. Pawns in a board game have functionality.

By the same token, portraying a personality as sole arbiter of what constitutes R in RPG doesn't cut it. An actor reciting the same lines every night and twice on sundays is doing that.

But, put 'em both together and you have a Role in the RPG sense: a meaningful, realized character.

But, again, how does that factor into a game like Dread where there are no character sheets or character abilities? Or something like Fiasco?
After all, in pure RP sessions where you never pick-up a dice, and none of your class features have any impact, you're still playing D&D.

It's a stretch to say it does so exclusively. It's also a stretch to say that personality does so exclusively. Put 'em together and you start to have something.

Which was my thought until I considered the above, and games without fancy character powers. Where you might be less a role and more a character archetype.
Being "the jock" is hardly fulfilling a function per se. It's a role but not one with "functions and capacities". It could but not necessarily.

You mean you can act out the persona (the definition of role is what's at issue). IT'd be a stretch to say you're roleplaying, because there's not only no difference difference among the personas, there's no functional difference in how they're played. You just go through the motions of the board game.

You can speak in character all you like, if the character makes no difference, it's just an affectation. ;P

In that case, you probably /can/ shade into RP, because you are making decisions that lead to the role being functional as well as an unconnected portrayal. Battletech did spawn an actual RPG. A crappy one, but still... ;P

Which is the point. You can totally RP through Clue, justifying your characters actions based on the adopted personal of Professor Plum. Having stretches of in character interactions across the table. (Try it. It's awesome fun.) And it's not much of a stretch to go from that to the Evening of Murder parties that are basically LARPing. To say nothing of historical reenactments. (Again, with no character capabilities.)

It all blurs the line. What is or is not an RPG.

To an extent, you could, but you'd be ignoring chunks of the game. 3 of his stats, his skills, many of the less formal options available in combat, etc.

But you could. Easily. Just walking up in social situations and being all "I made a Charisma check. I get a 13."
I've played more than one Living Greyhawk/ Pathfinder Society game like that.

 

[Li Shenron]

It is largely about functions. See for example the Thesaurus definition:



The only one of the above which might seem to involve personality is the first one related to performing actors. But even in this case the "role" is about the character's function in the story, e.g. the hero, the villain, the damsel in distress, the comic relief... The expression "an actor plays a role" doesn't originally mean that she performs a personality, but rather that she indeed covers a function in the narrative.



I think Gygax mixed a bit of personality with function mostly because he wanted his classes to provide also a story function, so that his set of rules could be used to direct also the overarching narrative, and not just the tactics and resolutions during the game.

It is peculiar that nowadays we have largely learned to prefer freedom from rules when it comes to create a PC's personality, and therefore we tend to reject rules restrictions and compulsions to non-tactical behaviour, while yet at the same time we have shifted to calling such non-tactical behaviour "roleplay", which is the part we don't want our "roleplay games" books to tell us how to do.

(Quoting myself just to add a little extra consideration to my previous post...)

This whole concept of "role" has pretty much guided my RPG hobby since the start.

For me a roleplay game has always been only optionally about interpreting or acting a character. Most often I've played in games where interpretation is a major part of the game, but in other cases the interpretation was minimal or practically ignored, and they still were RPG to me.

By contrast, the role in the party is for me a major defining feature of a RPG. It's what enables cooperative teamwork for problem-solving in a structured way. Same idea as in a team sport, where you have defenders, attackers, goalkeepers, stikers etc... There are very few teamsports where everyone is equal in role.

I am not saying it's the only way to play a RPG, you can conceivably play a game where everyone is functionally the same character with the same capabilities as everyone else. That means everyone has the same role, at least at the beginning of the game, maybe later some differentiation arises, but it will be coming from player's preferences rather than character's capabilities. You still have cooperative teamwork, but in an unstructured way.

For me the structured way i.e. "different characters have different capabilities therefore different roles" is much better and thus at the true heart of a RPG because:

1- it naturally suggests tasks and responsibilities ("you're a Cleric, you will be the one to heal and protect")
2- it guarantees that everyone has something important to do ("you're a Cleric, without you we won't last longer than a fight or two")
3- it alternates the "spotlight" on different characters ("you're a Cleric, you're the only one who has the right spells to save us from this undead mess now")
4- it relieves each player from the "I need to be good at everything" feeling ("you're the Cleric, nobody's asking you to sneak")
5- it prevents the best characters/players from taking over the whole party ("you're the Cleric, even the Paladin who's many levels ahead can't do everything you do)

If a RPG strongly enforces roles, then these 5 properties are well-supported, and they help a lot having a game that works smoothly and is a lot of fun.

On the contrary, I have always been cold/suspicious to the following ideas in a RPG, all of which dilute the roles in the party and thus work against the above good properties of the game:

- giving too many features/capabilities to each character (including too many spells or skills proficiencies)
- multiclassing beyond a second class
- allowing jack-of-all-trades types of features
- allowing swapping of major features on a daily basis
- having too many (N)PCs in the party

 

[Jester David]

By contrast, the role in the party is for me a major defining feature of a RPG. It's what enables cooperative teamwork for problem-solving in a structured way. Same idea as in a team sport, where you have defenders, attackers, goalkeepers, stikers etc... There are very few teamsports where everyone is equal in role.

But, by that definition of "role", hockey and football (both types) are role-playing games.