D&D General Styles of Roleplaying and Characters

[overgeeked]

I recently came across a video from Matt Colville and wanted to talk about it. It's a longer D&D video at 45 minutes, but it's mostly worth the watch. I'll summarize the relevant points for those who want the TL;DR. It's important to note that Colville isn't judging or putting people down for their chosen style of roleplaying. He's simply noting there are easily distinguishable styles.


TL;DR...

First, there's roleplaying and Roleplaying.

According to Colville, roleplaying is "making decisions about your character in a game with a persistent world where your character improves based on the decisions you made." So this is more a definition of a category of games. D&D and Skyrim etc. And Roleplaying is: "the act of making decisions about what a character would do when that character would do something different than what you would do." I know what you would do, but what would your character do? He is quick to point out that players making decisions for their characters with no consideration of what the character would do is still roleplaying, it's simply a less complex style of roleplaying. Not wrong or bad, just simpler.

Second, there are basically three styles of characters in a RPGs.

Zero Dimensional. Your character has no depth and is simply a game piece for you to move around. You as a player make the decisions for your character.

One Dimensional. Your character is largely defined by one trait and possibly a catch phrase. You as a player make decisions for your character based on that trait. All surface, no depth.

Three Dimensional. Your character is defined by multiple overlapping traits and characteristics, experiences doubt, and has internal conflict. Self-reflection, a capacity for doubt, internal unspoken monologue, and internal conflict makes a three-dimensional character real. You as a player make decisions for your character based on what your character would do.

These interact with each other in that zero-dimensional characters are roleplaying, one-dimensional characters are the most basic type of Roleplaying, and three-dimensional characters are advanced Roleplaying.

Colville also makes a point of discussing how speaking in character and doing an accent are not the same thing. Speaking in character is inhabiting the character and speaking as they would, i.e. dialogue. Doing an accent is giving the character an accent or funny voice that's not your own. Also, neither speaking in character nor doing an accent are really required for Roleplaying.

To reiterate, at no point is Colville pointing fingers or saying anyone's having badwrongfun. Quite the opposite, he makes a point of saying it's all roleplaying and as long as everyone's having fun then great. He also admonishes DMs who say they wish their players would Roleplay more.

In all, I think it's an interesting video and worth talking about. I think he's basically right. I can see a few complaints and objections, like the stereotype of the disruptive player who says "but that's what my character would do" as a defense for being a jerk at the table. For the record, no, that's not what Colville is talking about here.

 

[Jack Daniel]

What Colville calls Roleplaying, I call "improvisational method-acting." Precisely because it's so annoyingly snobbish when certain gamers say stuff like, "my game is low on combat, high on roleplaying!"

No. It's all roleplaying, and the stuff that certain gamers get snooty about is playacting.

 

[overgeeked]

It's all roleplaying.

Then we both agree with Matt's basic premise. Wonderful.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Then we both agree with Matt's basic premise. Wonderful.

I'm not sure. I think Matt's basic premise is still that improv method-acting (three-dimensional) is more complex and sophisticated and artistic than improv without respect to motivation or psychology (one-dimensional), which is in turn more complex and sophisticated and artistic than the thing he's trying really, really hard not to dismiss as "rollplaying" (zero-dimension characters and small-r roleplaying). And I definitely don't agree.

 

[overgeeked]

I'm not sure. I think Matt's basic premise is still that improv method-acting (three-dimensional) is more complex and sophisticated and artistic than improv without respect to motivation or psychology (one-dimensional), which is in turn more complex and sophisticated and artistic than the thing he's trying really, really hard not to dismiss as "rollplaying" (zero-dimension characters and small-r roleplaying). And I definitely don't agree.

I think you're ascribing thoughts and feelings to Matt that he isn't expressing. He uses the term "roll-playing" in the video, acknowledging that some people derisively refer to 0-dimensional characters as "roll-playing", but he does not...at any point in the video...claim that roleplaying is wrong or bad nor that Roleplaying is right and good. They're on a continuum. How much depth do you want your character to have? And there's no wrong answers. Any answer to that means you're roleplaying. And whatever your preference, awesome. Have fun with it. The above TL;DR was my summation of the beginning, definitional part of the video. He goes on to talk about what to do if you want to add dimension to your characters. Again, at no point saying it's better than, good, or right to do so. Only more complex. And acknowledging that it is more complex is akin to acknowledging that water's wet. It shouldn't be controversial. It's a fact that having more complex characters is, in fact, more complex.

 

[Jack Daniel]

I think you're ascribing thoughts and feelings to Matt that he isn't expressing. … He goes on to talk about what to do if you want to add dimension to your characters. Again, at no point saying it's better than, good, or right to do so. Only more complex. And acknowledging that it is more complex is akin to acknowledging that water's wet. It shouldn't be controversial. It's a fact that having more complex characters is, in fact, more complex.

The subtext certainly feels like it's there. (Appropriate, given how much he goes on about subtext.) He's trying hard to be inoffensive, but his criteria for deep characters—for "elevated" roleplaying that approaches "art"—is moments that feel real (in part because of the distance between player motivation and character motivation) and therefore have meaning.

I personally get more of that in spades from subjecting zero-dimensional characters to Gygaxian, challenge-based play. Which is not to be dismissed as "just" hack'n'slash, loot & leveling, or what Matt at one point calls "zombiecide."

 

[overgeeked]

The subtext certainly feels like it's there. (Appropriate, given how much he goes on about subtext.) He's trying hard to be inoffensive, but his criteria for deep characters—for "elevated" roleplaying that approaches "art"—is moments that feel real (in part because of the distance between player motivation and character motivation) and therefore have meaning.

It is a video about adding dimensions to characters. He goes out of his way to repeatedly say it’s all roleplaying and all good. If you insist he’s talking down about your preferred style when he’s explicitly not, I don’t know what to tell you.

I personally get more of that in spades from subjecting zero-dimensional characters to Gygaxian, challenge-based play.

I personally have not. I’ve never got more out of zero-dimensional Gygaxian D&D than the feeling of an ever so slightly tailored version of WoW. Not putting it down. I’ve played both for years. And had fun with them for a while. I just want more than that now. That old style simply isn’t fun anymore.

Which is not to be dismissed as "just" hack'n'slash, loot & leveling, or what Matt at one point calls "zombiecide."

Zombiecide is the name of a game. He was making a reference.

 

[zarionofarabel]

I personally get more of that in spades from subjecting zero-dimensional characters to Gygaxian, challenge-based play. Which is not to be dismissed as "just" hack'n'slash, loot & leveling, or what Matt at one point calls "zombiecide."

I am the exact opposite. The zero-dimension playstyle is something I can't stand participating in, it's just about the most boring thing I have ever experienced. Whereas the three-dimensional playstyle offers so much more for me I can't ever consider it in the same realm as zero-dimension. For me, one is an amazing and engaging experience, the other is about as much fun as having a root canal.

Different strokes for different folks as they say, but I definitely agree with what Matt is saying.

 

[Flamestrike]

I am the exact opposite. The zero-dimension playstyle is something I can't stand participating in, it's just about the most boring thing I have ever experienced. Whereas the three-dimensional playstyle offers so much more for me I can't ever consider it in the same realm as zero-dimension. For me, one is an amazing and engaging experience, the other is about as much fun as having a root canal.

Different strokes for different folks as they say, but I definitely agree with what Matt is saying.

That moment when players at the table make decisions based on what they know, rather than what their character knows, thinks and desires.

Drives me mad. I always approach stuff in character as 'what would my character do'

 

[Minigiant]

I think there's another dimension

2nd Dimensional: Your character is largely defined as you with one major trait on top of it.. You as a player make decisions for your character based on that trait heavily flavoring your own personality and goals.

You're not a basic dwarf fighter.
You're not just Dave.
You are Dave as a Dwarf Fighter. You are a dwarf so you like beer. But Dave's beer snobbishness and love for animals comes out hard .