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

[Mercule]

"How do you think of music - Beethoven, or Beatles?", does.

Actually, it's more "How do you think of music - the note or the melody?" My answer is that a note without the melody is only sound. You cannot have a melody without it being made of notes, but sound exists without being music. Therefore, while I think both are necessary, if I'm forced to choose, I have to go with the melody being what makes music. Whether it's a complex or simple melody is beside the point.

With roleplaying, you cannot have a persona without them taking action, but action can exist without persona. Therefore, while I think both are necessary, if I'm forced to choose, I have to go with the persona as being what makes it roleplaying. Whether it's a deep or simple persona is beside the point. At a certain point, even "Lawful Good Paladin" is still a persona because it ascribes motives and personality to the character, even if they are paper thin.

If the function of the character is expanded to include a wider variety of personality or motivational elements, you can get very rich non-pawn RPGing without adopting the "roleplaying = personality" approach. At least in my experience.

I don't see how. The instant the PC takes action based on their own motivations, it becomes roleplaying in the persona sense. This is why I say the very definition of the word "roleplay" is important to the conversation.

Multiple people, including me, have said, multiple times that you really can't separate the functional role from the persona role but, if forced to choose the persona takes primacy because that's what makes it a roleplaying game. The only way to remove the persona is to go full-pawn stance.

I've made multiple overtures to the possibility that you could go functional role first, then build (even a shallow) persona around it, which would be an interesting conversation. You've created a definition of "function" so broad as to include anything that can be thrown into a category bucket, no matter how broad the bucket is -- including calling out alignment as functional, which is just bizarre. When challenged on that, you have reflected back on those who disagree. You've used quotes from Gygax as an appeal to authority to justify your position, ignoring any conflicting quotes, which is rather tiresome. At this point, all appearance is that you set up a poll simply to argue a certain perspective, at which point, I really should just check out of the conversation.

However, because I still genuinely do not understand the question, and I really hate not understanding things that seem simple on the surface, I'll give it one more shot. I think the disconnect comes from clear definitions of what is meant by certain things. Here is how I understand the two options:

- Function/responsibility speaks to the "job" the character has to do. It can be (but is not limited to) 4E combat roles or the comparable for the other two pillars. If all appropriate functions are filled appropriately, in-game objectives tend to be easier to attain.

- Personality/motivation is how the character thinks, feels, or otherwise exhibits personal fiction. This is what separates the character from being a game piece (pawn). It does not require the player to talk in the first-person, adopt an accent, dress up, or otherwise behave like an actor, only consider what the character would do based on criteria tethered to the character's internal fiction.

Based on those definitions, I think roleplaying, as used in the term "roleplaying game" references the latter. The former is found in a great number of other games, even if the functional roles are clear and assigned.

It's a sliding scale, though. LARPing occupies an extreme focus on the persona -- one I do not find enjoyable in the least. On the other end (and slightly outside the bounds of an actual RPG, IMO) is something like HeroQuest, which has more than a passing resemblance to D&D and can have personality injected into it.

Most roleplaying groups will fall somewhere between those extremes, but probably favor one or the other. I very much favor the persona side, but only in a way that's more akin to reading a book than watching a play. I want clear, in-character goals, but hold the anime eyes and please don't knock over your beverage while gesturing. Also, while I want the major NPCs to be more interesting than a menu in a video game, please make some progress on the actual quest instead of chatting up every innkeeper about his kids.

While I don't like LARPing, I do enjoy HeroQuest, and other adventure games. Why do I tend to choose D&D (or other RPGs) over adventure games? Simple: inherent in any roleplaying game is a certain amount of character personality. Even the most "old school" dungeon delve I've experienced has had characters with at least a modicum of personality that makes it far more engaging than just moving pieces on a board -- even if it's the humorous reasons given for why a PC isn't around when a player can't make a session.

 

[seebs]

AD&D PHB, page 7:

"As a role player, you become Falstaff the fighter. You know how strong, intelligent, wise, healthy, dextrous 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 "god-given 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!"

That's right there at the beginning of the PHB, and stresses that this is about assuming, not fulfilling, a role. You don't "do the job of" Falstaff, you "become" Falstaff.

 

[Tony Vargas]

People are quoting the same passage from the 1e AD&D DMG to 'prove' both sides of the argument.

D&D is officially a religion.

 

[Corwin]

D&D is officially a religion.

The recently deceased Jack Chick has been trying to warn you of that for decades!

 

[Sunseeker]

*img*

Had to rewatch that to remember that line. Good times.

Honestly the more complete of an answer is this:
I design my characters statistically to fill a role. Sometimes that role comes with more fluff than usual, but the core of it is to fill a crunch-based role. Someone who is mathematically and statistically able to do certain things when I need them to do certain things. Maybe it's the traditional gallant paladin, defender of the weak; others it is the thieving rogue with many skills; sometimes it's the big, dumb, brawny guy who hits things. There's no necessary order for me to create the math and then the fluff, or the fluff and then the math.

But once I have one or the other, I will then move on to my "role" that I intend on playing. I am, for example, in the process of creating a southern gentleman styled paladin. Always says please and thank you, sir, ma'am, never swears, even to his enemies and holds a speak softly and carry a big stick policy. A role intended for nothing but thematic play need not serve any purpose other than personal enjoyment and group enjoyment as a side effect.

The mathematical role I fill is the service I give to the group. My compromise on what I want to play and what the group needs. My roleplay fluff is completely mine. That is how I intend to enjoy my own character.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Nobody in our group plays what the group "needs". 5th edition took great care to eliminate the "need" for specific group make ups. This allows people to come together and play what they want.

 

[Henry]

People are quoting the same passage from the 1e AD&D DMG to 'prove' both sides of the argument.

D&D is officially a religion.

In the beginning, the Arneson created the Roleplaying.
And the Roleplaying was without Form, and Improv,
And the Gygax saw that it was good.
And the Arneson and the Gygax created the Game,
And the Cindy did name them, and Lo,

Was the Dungeon and the Dragon become one.

Ohhhmmm....Naaaaaaat Twennnnntttyyyyy....Ohhhmmmm....

 

[robus]

First I'd like to say thanks to [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] for starting this discussion because it's been interesting to see the responses.

I chose option 1 because I didn't read it carefully enough (as I see from reading the discussion) - but I'm still not sure I'd vote for option 2 either (I really think there should be a third choice i.e. : Playing a character with a particular set of capabilities)

When we think about make believe games as kids we think about how we want to play a particular role because it sounds fun, but there is little to no consideration of how that role balances with the other roles chosen by our playmates. We just want to do what sounds fun. If that means there are two pilots, or assassins then so be it. Unless one of the group gets into a snit about the impossibility of that.

I'll be interested to see how my group considers group dynamics when they roll up new characters at some point. Will some make choices based upon what others do? Or will everyone just suit themselves and hope for the best?

So, anyway, interesting discussion

 

[pemerton]

I chose option 1 because I didn't read it carefully enough (as I see from reading the discussion) - but I'm still not sure I'd vote for option 2 either (I really think there should be a third choice i.e. : Playing a character with a particular set of capabilities)

When we think about make believe games as kids we think about how we want to play a particular role because it sounds fun, but there is little to no consideration of how that role balances with the other roles chosen by our playmates. We just want to do what sounds fun. If that means there are two pilots, or assassins then so be it. Unless one of the group gets into a snit about the impossibility of that.

I'll be interested to see how my group considers group dynamics when they roll up new characters at some point. Will some make choices based upon what others do? Or will everyone just suit themselves and hope for the best?

You didn't need a third choice - your interpretation of (1) is more or less what I had in mind. The idea that "function" is somehow group-relative, or about party balance, is not something I was thinking about when I posted and created the poll, and is an idea that other posters have introduced into the thread.

You might also want to look at my reply to [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] upthread, where I try to say something about how I see the function/capability idea extending into indie-style games that make personality a focus of mechanical capability.

 

[pemerton]

At a certain point, even "Lawful Good Paladin" is still a persona because it ascribes motives and personality to the character, even if they are paper thin.

Yes, I made this point in the OP.

The instant the PC takes action based on their own motivations, it becomes roleplaying in the persona sense.

If I build a AD&D thief, I have a pick pockets skill. Because of this, I might decide to declare, as an action, that I pick some NPC's pocket because I want some money.

If I am playing Marvel Heroic RP Wolverine, then I have a Milestone called "Old Friends, Old Enemies", which gives me 1 XP when I declare someone an old ally or foe, and 3 XP when I aid my old ally or deal trauma to my old foe; and another called "And What I Do Isn't Very Nice", which gives me 10 XP when I either kill someone in front of innocents, or recover from my berserker rage
in front of innocents without having inflicted trauma on anyone. Having these Milestones, I might declare an NPC I'm confronting an old foe, deal traum to him/her, and even kill him/her in front of my innocent Catholic friend Nightcrawler. (This series of events happened in the last session of MHRP that I GMed.)

I don't think either of these is the same as what is described in the 2nd ed AD&D PHB. Neither is a case of "creat[ing] a unique and entertaining personality in the game" regardless of whether I have "good" or "disappointing" stats. Rather, they are both cases of reading the character sheet, identifying the mechanical capabilities (the "stats"), responsibilities etc of the character and then putting them to work.

Multiple people, including me, have said, multiple times that you really can't separate the functional role from the persona role but, if forced to choose the persona takes primacy because that's what makes it a roleplaying game. The only way to remove the persona is to go full-pawn stance.

It's not about removing the persona. It's about whether creating an entertaining persona, regardless of stats, is how you envisage roleplaying.

Clearly that's what Zeb Cook thought of, assuming he was sincere when he wrote the 2nd ed AD&D PHB. I've played with D&D players think of RPGing in this style. And those games are noticeably different from mine.

You've created a definition of "function" so broad as to include anything that can be thrown into a category bucket, no matter how broad the bucket is -- including calling out alignment as functional, which is just bizarre. When challenged on that, you have reflected back on those who disagree. You've used quotes from Gygax as an appeal to authority

I'm not "appealing to authority" - I'm trying to interpret what it was that Gygax envisaged as the contribution of alignment to roleplaying.

On p 7 of his PHB he says that "You act out the game as this character, staying within your 'godgiven abilities', and as molded by your philosophical and moral ethics (called alignment)." On p 86 of his DMG he instructs the GM, in judging how well a player has played, to consider both "the natural functions of each class of character . . . [and] the professed alignment of each character."

The 2nd ed AD&D PHB's discussion of alignment says that

Ultimately, the player is advised to pick an alignment he can play comfortably, one that fits in with those of the rest of the group, and he should stay with that alignment for the course of the character's career. There will be times when the DM, especially if he is clever, creates situations to test the character's resolve and ethics. But finding the right course of action within the character's alignment is part of the fun and challenge of roleplaying.​

I think that is actually closer to Gygax's approach - alignment as a constraint on the character's proper capabilities/responsibilities - than the stuff in the same book about "creating an entertaining personality".

all appearance is that you set up a poll simply to argue a certain perspective, at which point, I really should just check out of the conversation.

Huh? You (and some other posters) are the ones who started arguing - telling me I'm wrong. I just wanted a discussion about different approaches, not an argument as to why some approaches are wrong.

Function/responsibility speaks to the "job" the character has to do. It can be (but is not limited to) 4E combat roles or the comparable for the other two pillars. If all appropriate functions are filled appropriately, in-game objectives tend to be easier to attain.

I didn't say anything about group composition, and nor do any of the quotes from the AD&D books talk about group composition. Others in the thread have talked about group composition being important to them, though.

By function or capability I mean what Gygax calls "the natural functions" of a character, based on his/her "godgiven abilities". In classic D&D these are determined by class. In games with more intricate PC building rules, they can be determined on a more fine-grained basis than class (even in 2nd ed AD&D, for instance, whether or not a thief can pick pockets, and hence has pilfering as one of his/her "natural functions", depends on player choices in PC building).

Roleplaying, in the sense where function et al are salient, means taking the character, reading the sheet, identifying the "natural functions", and then putting them to work.

Personality/motivation is how the character thinks, feels, or otherwise exhibits personal fiction. This is what separates the character from being a game piece (pawn). It does not require the player to talk in the first-person, adopt an accent, dress up, or otherwise behave like an actor, only consider what the character would do based on criteria tethered to the character's internal fiction.

As I said earlier in this post, I'm talking about roleplay in the sense of aiming at the creation of a distinct and entertaining personality, to a significant extent regardless of stats.

I think roleplaying, as used in the term "roleplaying game" references the latter. The former is found in a great number of other games, even if the functional roles are clear and assigned.

I think that Gygax used "roleplaying" to mean taking on a certain imagined function or suite of capabiltieis in the game; and that, by the late 80s (as reflected in the AD&D 2nd ed PHB), the terms was generally used to talk about making up an entertaining personality.

That's right there at the beginning of the PHB, and stresses that this is about assuming, not fulfilling, a role. You don't "do the job of" Falstaff, you "become" Falstaff.

People are quoting the same passage from the 1e AD&D DMG to 'prove' both sides of the argument.

My response is that I don't see the difference between "assuming", "fulfilling", "becoming" and "doing the job of".

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, at her coronation, assumed the role of queen, became queen, commenced doing the job of queen, and thereby fulfilled the role of queen. Maybe there are some usages that draw signficant distinctions, but at the moment they're escaping me.

What interests me is how Falstaff is characterised. Gygax says nothing about Falstaff's personality, but emphasises very much that becoming Falstaff means knowing your stats, class and alignment. So far from saying that becoming Falstaff means making up and expressing a personality for Falstaff, it says that the GM might make up Falstaff's appearance and backstory.