Creativity vs Imagination: At what point is it no longer "role playing"?

[Hussar]

So basically, your stats delineate the boundaries within which you are free to roleplay. This is why I have always believed that roleplaying and rollplaying complement each other, rather than being mutually exclusive (or as some still stubbornly believe, that one must necessarily come at the expense of the other).

Well said. Have some XP.

I can't remember who it was around here who had a sig that read something to the effect of: The rules provide the direction for my character, I provide the script.

To me, this is the best way to view any RPG. The mechanics are certainly going to act as a constraint on your creativity. And that's a good thing. Unconstrained creativity is meaningless gibberish - it's chaos. You have to have a framework in order to interact with the other players. Without a framework, without a common ground and common assumptions between everyone playing the game, you cannot possibly go forward in any meaningful way.

Heck, taking it all the way back to Cops and Robbers as children, we still all understood that you couldn't shoot around corners, you couldn't declare that you were invisible, and, try as you might, no one could fly.

Rule frameworks provide a common language for all the players at the table. Roleplaying allows us to take the framework and construct meaningful interactions between the players. You need both of them for a role playing game.

 

[Ariosto]

It's interesting that both Runestar and MichaelSomething equated "role-playing" with narration.

Runestar is right that what should affect a character's chances of survival is not "how elaborately or vividly you describe how your character might have reacted to the dragon's breath weapon."

What should matter is the reaction itself. Putting on a ring of fire resistance, diving for cover, and so on might be more helpful than standing in place. Running away might mean less time in the cone of fire -- as might running closer to the dragon!

The choice of how one's character behaves (not of the consequences) is the key element of role-playing.

MichaelSomething's example suggests that the choice of a "tactical option" in the form of a 4E Encounter Exploit (Fighter Attack 7) is something other than role-playing.

I agree in that the game mechanism itself is thoroughly divorced from any choice meaningful to the character; it is a purely abstract board-game element. The "color text" in the PHB may suggest the "color narration" in the example -- but that has nothing to do with how the power actually operates!

That's taking the dismissive view of concrete matters as mere "fluff" to the extreme that has become par for the course.

If the character's vocalization were in fact a cause of effects, and those effects were based on actually relevant factors, then it would be not just "color" but role-playing.

Reducing the concept of role-playing to insignificant narration applied after the fact to the results of abstract game manipulations misses the point of what made Dungeons & Dragons a notably new kind of game. One can (and some people do) tell a story in just such a way about the adventures of the Clothes Iron and the Top Hat in Atlantic City, or about a game of Gin Rummy.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I think role-playing is narration + chance.

Me and my group occassionaly run scenarios where we narrate most of it all yet sometimes call for the roll of 1d6. A high roll is favorable and the GM arbites.

Those games are more fun the fully fledged D&D games. The one thing they lack is progression. There is continuation but alas no level progression.

I've found I can live without progression, but this is not true for everyone.

 

[LostSoul]

I agree in that the game mechanism itself is thoroughly divorced from any choice meaningful to the character; it is a purely abstract board-game element. The "color text" in the PHB may suggest the "color narration" in the example -- but that has nothing to do with how the power actually operates!

Interesting... where do you draw the line between an abstract board-game element and a choice that's meaningful to the character? Both are player choices - diving for cover or using a power - and I'm not sure exactly where the difference lies.

 

[Ariosto]

If you have a 4E PHB, Lost Soul, then you can turn to page 80 and read the rule for yourself.

 

[LostSoul]

If you have a 4E PHB, Lost Soul, then you can turn to page 80 and read the rule for yourself.

That's not what I mean. I think I see your point but I wanted you to explain it a little more.

You say above that "choice of how one's character behaves (not of the consequences) is the key element of role-playing".

How is choosing to dive for cover different from choosing to use Come and Get It?

Both are player choices.
Both are in reaction to what's occuring in the game world.
Neither one has anything to say about "character" in the literary sense (in and of themselves).

One big difference I see is in the consequences of making that choice and how we resolve the character's actions in the game world. But that doesn't matter so much, right?

I think the big difference is that "diving for cover", even if we have movement speeds and are tracking the fictional area using miniatures, string, and a ruler, is more clearly "grounded in the fiction" (if that term makes sense) than Come And Get It is.

You can easily understand the action to dive for cover and what it means, but what does Come and Get It mean? And the fact that you can use it when the players at the table don't seem to think it makes any sense (like drawing archers off a battlement) could be a big difference, too.

Though I still wonder... is there really that much difference? It seems to me that there's some kind of continuum, with "diving for cover" on one end and "Come and Get It" (or something more abstract, like Action Points) on the other.

Does it still mean that colour has no importance, is not a "relevant factor" in the game? I don't know. It's possible that the colour used to describe the Come and Get It action might be important; ie. the player's description might give a bonus to a follow-up attack using the DM's best friend (+2/-2 modifier to the die roll), or it might make a Diplomacy or Intimidate check a possibility where before it was not. Though is that part of how the system was intended to be used? Don't know.

Anyway, I think this is an interesting topic and I look forward to seeing what comes of it.

 

[Betote]

Captain Obvious to the rescue!!!

It's no longer role playing when you stop playing a role. Rules can help or hinder your ability to relate to your character, but they can't force nor stop you from doing it.

When, then, can we say that some people aren't role playing? When they don't say "my character", but "my mini", "my token" or "my collection of stats, feats and abilities".

Can we say that 4e is not a role playing game? Yes, when it's used solely to play a tactical fantasy miniatures battle game.

Can we say that 4e is a role playing game? Yes, when it's used to create a story about some characters going out on adventures.

So, 4e is Schödinger's RPG; in fact, almost any "role playable" game can be a Schödinger's RPG. I've played games of V:tM with no role playing, and highly roleplayed games of Zombies!!!, so it's a matter of attitude.

 

[howandwhy99]

It's interesting that both Runestar and MichaelSomething equated "role-playing" with narration.

Runestar is right that what should affect a character's chances of survival is not "how elaborately or vividly you describe how your character might have reacted to the dragon's breath weapon."

What should matter is the reaction itself. Putting on a ring of fire resistance, diving for cover, and so on might be more helpful than standing in place. Running away might mean less time in the cone of fire -- as might running closer to the dragon!

The choice of how one's character behaves (not of the consequences) is the key element of role-playing.

MichaelSomething's example suggests that the choice of a "tactical option" in the form of a 4E Encounter Exploit (Fighter Attack 7) is something other than role-playing.

I agree in that the game mechanism itself is thoroughly divorced from any choice meaningful to the character; it is a purely abstract board-game element. The "color text" in the PHB may suggest the "color narration" in the example -- but that has nothing to do with how the power actually operates!

That's taking the dismissive view of concrete matters as mere "fluff" to the extreme that has become par for the course.

If the character's vocalization were in fact a cause of effects, and those effects were based on actually relevant factors, then it would be not just "color" but role-playing.

Reducing the concept of role-playing to insignificant narration applied after the fact to the results of abstract game manipulations misses the point of what made Dungeons & Dragons a notably new kind of game. One can (and some people do) tell a story in just such a way about the adventures of the Clothes Iron and the Top Hat in Atlantic City, or about a game of Gin Rummy.

I like a lot of what you are saying, but I think you make a key mistake in the underlined passage. Attempting to predict consequences and create effects by acting out the behavior is roleplaying. (Versus theatre games where consequences are determined by character preference and player choice instead of game design rewarding and defining the role played). In an RPG, the consequences of a person's actions are the most obvious definers of the role they are playing. It isn't about character portrayal or asking "what would my character do?" That's a red herring used by the Big Model in order to redefine theatre games as RPGs.

 

[Ariosto]

Howandwhy99, are you suggesting that "attempting to predict" consequences is synonymous with "choosing" them? The in-character choice is indeed but an attempt ("I try to dodge the blow."); a player choice that dictates consequences beyond the character's control ("The blow misses me.") is something else.

 

[howandwhy99]

Howandwhy99, are you suggesting that "attempting to predict" consequences is synonymous with "choosing" them?

No, though my response may have come across that way. Trying to predict consequences is key to any strategy, which, along with the overall goal, is why choices are chosen when roleplaying. Without the ability to predict consequences the choices cannot really be made to perform the role. Can roleplaying be done accidently? Sure, but a game about roleplaying cannot be really done played as without strategy there is no game (or at least not one about roleplaying).

The in-character choice is indeed but an attempt ("I try to dodge the blow."); a player choice that dictates consequences beyond the character's control ("The blow misses me.") is something else.

Indeed, it is something else other than roleplaying. But it is the decision to dodge the blow that demonstrates quality rolelpaying - not the abstracted die roll afterwards. Rather the decision is based upon role strategy and without the ability to predict according to the definers of that role, the elements of the world related by the GM and accounted for by the rules, strategy isn't happening.

Argh, that's a little complicated. I think I see where you're coming from now about the die rolls: consequences of one's actions not being necessarily the roleplayed element.