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

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Jester David]

In fairness, I think it was reasoning by analogy, not amenable to reductio ad absurdum.

I was spinning off the fact that the definition used makes it not an analogy but an example. If defining RPGs as "games where you fill a function as part of a team" then that includes most team sports.

The obvious counterpoint is that you can have solo adventures in an RPG.

Also another good point.

What the post you are responding to was trying to get at, instead, is that at most tables (not the solo adventures), team dynamics and the concept of the "party" are important, and similar to team dynamics in team sports.

Right. And I agree with that. Teamwork and team dynamics are an essential part of any group social activity and making your strengths your focus is a good idea for any group project, be it a sport, a work project, or a dungeon delve.

Buuuut it's not a useful definition for the "role" in "roleplaying games"


Not the least since roleplay has been around for decades. Roleplay therapy has been used medically since the '60s and has been used to describe training methods for longer. Historical reenactiments have been going on since time immemorial (there are reports of Romans doing so), with the participants fulfilling a "role". To say nothing of theater and actors.
It's co-opting the usage of the world "role", let alone the term "roleplay".

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Faenor]

Ok, I think I need to say less.

Which do you mean?

1) role-play means choosing your actions based on a combination of class and personality.

2) role-play means play acting your personality.

 

[Corwin]

I prefer to roll-play.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Hanging with friends.

Meh.

Thrust into a tough situation.

The reluctant hero thing is a very legitimate function (in the sense the OP used it, since we want to avoid assuming the conclusion by calling it a 'role'), one that RPGs, IMHO/X have consistently failed to handle, btw.

But, again, how does that factor into a game like Dread where there are no character sheets or character abilities? Or something like Fiasco?

Same way it would in freestyle RP. You're not just sitting around expressing personalities at eachother - stuff happens, PC /do things/. Functions become a matter of initiative (not in the mechanical sense, just in the sense of who steps forward to do what), rather than mechanics.

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.

You can portray a personality while having no impact on the play of the game or flow of fictional events. It's still Clue, not an RPG.

But you could. Easily. Just walking up in social situations and being all "I made a Charisma check. I get a 13."

You can do that in an RPG, yes, and it remains an RPG when you do so. RPGs have mechanics, mechanics can model a character that's very different from the player, regardless of pillar.

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

Well, I guess the players do have personalities.

[/I]The obvious counterpoint is that you can have solo adventures in an RPG.

Sure, your 'role in the party' is 'lone hero.'

I prefer to roll-play.

In a sense, this thread is just another iteration of the role vs roll debate on UseNet in the 90s. Just another attempt to draw a line and declare styles of RP on one side invalid, with your OneTrueWay safely on the correct side of the line. (Sorry pemerton, I don't mean to accuse of you doing that intentionally.)

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Jester David]

You can portray a personality while having no impact on the play of the game or flow of fictional events. It's still Clue, not an RPG.

Right. Because the rolepkaying has no impact on the narrative. The narrative doesn't change. The ability of the role to impact the narrative is what makes something and RPG.

In a sense, this thread is just another iteration of the role vs roll debate on UseNet in the 90s. Just another attempt to draw a line and declare styles of RP on one side invalid, with your OneTrueWay safely on the correct side of the line. (Sorry pemerton, I don't mean to accuse of you doing that intentionally.)

That did seem to be the intent of the OP, yes.

I don't much care how other people play D&D. We each have our own style. But I do draw umbrage when people try and force their definitions into "roleplaying" as a whole.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Right. Because the rolepkaying has no impact on the narrative. The narrative doesn't change. The ability of the role to impact the narrative is what makes something and RPG.

It's true that portraying a personality in the limited mechanical concept of an actual board game like Clue has no impact on the narrative, yes. That's why portraying a personality, alone, is not the 'role' in RPG. The ability to impact the narrative if a question of function within that narrative, and is also arguably not enough, alone. Put 'em together, though, and you've got a Role you can Play meaningfully in a Game.

Your initial impulse was correct.

That did seem to be the intent of the OP, yes.

It's also the direction you seemed to take it,in the same sense, just from the other side of the line, when you abandoned your initial reaction to the question.

I don't much care how other people play D&D. We each have our own style. But I do draw umbrage when people try and force their definitions into "roleplaying" as a whole.

You do realize that's exactly what you're doing by staking out the personality-alone-is-RP position?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Really?

Yes. It's a common archetype in fiction, for instance.