Do you "roleplay" in non-TTRPG Games?

[stonehead]

You should try Diplomacy. The only way to win, is to role play!

Do you think I'm missing out on something by not roleplaying in my board games?

I would disagree with this statement in most games. Many games have plenty of room to roleplay and still try your hardest to win. In fact, it can help you realize non-traditional strategies.

Roleplay a railroad tycoon in Monopoly, forgoing rentals and focusing on railroads. Play a resource tycoon in Catan, gaming to control one resource rather that maximizing income. Have a homeland you refuse to retreat from in Risk. All are nontraditional methods with high roleplaying potential, but still completely possible to play strategically with a primary focus on winning.

Obviously, there are some highly technical games that this applies to less. Or games like tic-tac-toe, where you must follow certain algorithms to win. But I think most commonly played board games today have plenty of room for it.

Maybe it does vary, and I play mostly technical games. Even in the Risk example though, stockpiling your units on a territory haphazardly in the midddle seems like a really bad strategy.

More generally, if you're deciding where to put your reinforcements, (or which move to take in any game really) you can ask yourself "Why am I making this move instead of a different one?" If the answer is "Because it's the best move I can think of" then it's not roleplaying. Even if you're doing what your character would do, does it count if you end up making the optimal move anyway? If not, then by definition roleplaying is at odds with trying your hardest. If so, then you could say I roleplay as a cold, calculating, but not particularly intelligent tactician when playing games.

 

[payn]

Do you think I'm missing out on something by not roleplaying in my board games?

Maybe? I cant say for certain as its a preferential thing person to person.

Maybe it does vary, and I play mostly technical games. Even in the Risk example though, stockpiling your units on a territory haphazardly in the midddle seems like a really bad strategy.

More generally, if you're deciding where to put your reinforcements, (or which move to take in any game really) you can ask yourself "Why am I making this move instead of a different one?" If the answer is "Because it's the best move I can think of" then it's not roleplaying. Even if you're doing what your character would do, does it count if you end up making the optimal move anyway? If not, then by definition roleplaying is at odds with trying your hardest. If so, then you could say I roleplay as a cold, calculating, but not particularly intelligent tactician when playing games.

Thats what is interesting with Diplomacy, there is no random chances in the game. You must work with the other players to advance. All your units are equal to the other player's units. Now, if you are playing something like Risk or Stratego there are elements that get you over the stalemate line mechanically. Which makes Diplomacy not sound that much like a board game, yet it makes D&D sound exactly like a board game.

When you are deciding "its the best move I can think of" in D&D, does that remove the role playing?

 

[Pedantic]

Thats what is interesting with Diplomacy, there is no random chances in the game. You must work with the other players to advance. All your units are equal to the other player's units. Now, if you are playing something like Risk or Stratego there are elements that get you over the stalemate line mechanically. Which makes Diplomacy not sound that much like a board game, yet it makes D&D sound exactly like a board game.

When you are deciding "its the best move I can think of" in D&D, does that remove the role playing?

Hold up, that seems like a substitution. The engine that makes Diplomacy work is a combination of negotiation and defection; you offer up a series of agreements and then either hold up your end or don't, with the precise timing and iterated playing out of each new position playing out the end game.

I don't think "roleplaying" and "negotiation" are meaningfully the same thing. Would you equally say roleplaying is necessary to win Chinatown or Sidereal Confluence? You need to exchange positions and resources with the other players to meaningfully interact in those games at all, and in SC in particular, your faction's starting position and unique abilities will determine how you approach those interactions...but is that roleplaying? I don't think one needs to embrace the KT’ZR’KT’RTL's unusual relationship to technology to realize their ability to more cheaply colonize planets makes offering those planets as bargaining chips effective.

That, and negotiation isn't even a universal constant in no-randomness, high-player-interaction games. The whole Splotter catalogue purposefully eschews them both, with players reacting to the situations created by the actions of everyone else around the table, but rarely able to meaningfully make agreements with them that can be leveraged for victory. You win those games not by making agreements to do specific things with the other players, but by predicting their actions (and also, importantly how those actions will change in response to your actions).

I wasn't especially effusive earlier, but I put forward that roleplaying lives at the level of determining the goals/stakes of the game. I think you can choose it as the basis for strategic play (usually to your own detriment), but I don't think it's necessary, and I think it can't be necessary for the thing you're doing to be a board game and not a roleplaying game. As soon as the conditions that end the game and evaluate victory are specified entirely by the game itself and not by the players, I think roleplaying is no longer a required part of the activity.

You can't play D&D without setting a goal, either inherited from the adventure, based on character choices you've already made or some other thing that sits above the mechanical interaction level. If it was a board game, it would be one missing the "End Game" and "Victory" sections of the rulebook, just leaving all the rules for moving pieces around. Roleplaying is necessary to set those terms of engagement, while in a board game it's never required for them, because the game must tell you how it ends and how to evaluate success/failure for it to be playable at all.

 

[Deset Gled]

Even in the Risk example though, stockpiling your units on a territory haphazardly in the midddle seems like a really bad strategy.

The funny thing is that the Risk example is from a real game. One player made a decision that they were the descendant of royalty in Greenland, and made it their mission to control that country. And it worked.

This had a number of unexpected consequences. It increased the tensions for the player holding South America against their enemy in Africa, as it guaranteed they could not gain North America without taking the Greenland player out. But it also made sure that both the player aiming for Europe and the player in South America wanted the Greenland player to survive in other locations as much as possible. For the European, this was because they had a defacto truce with Greenland to help protect their border. For the South American, they needed Greenland to have alternate fronts to battle in so that they didn't dump all their armies back home. This support lead to the Greenland player to be much more successful than they otherwise would have been.

That's the thing with complex strategy games, especially ones with a social aspect. Sometimes you have to try non-standard strategies. And roleplaying is a great way to do that. I'd argue it's better than just being random; if you fail, at least you'll have a story.

 

[Gradine]

Do you think I'm missing out on something by not roleplaying in my board games?

All I can say for certain is that the only thing you are missing out on by not playing Diplomacy is pain

 

[payn]

Hold up, that seems like a substitution. The engine that makes Diplomacy work is a combination of negotiation and defection; you offer up a series of agreements and then either hold up your end or don't, with the precise timing and iterated playing out of each new position playing out the end game.

I don't think "roleplaying" and "negotiation" are meaningfully the same thing. Would you equally say roleplaying is necessary to win Chinatown or Sidereal Confluence? You need to exchange positions and resources with the other players to meaningfully interact in those games at all, and in SC in particular, your faction's starting position and unique abilities will determine how you approach those interactions...but is that roleplaying? I don't think one needs to embrace the KT’ZR’KT’RTL's unusual relationship to technology to realize their ability to more cheaply colonize planets makes offering those planets as bargaining chips effective.

I dont know those games, so cant say. While negotiation itself isnt role play, it being the heart of Diplomacy the game makes it a role playing element. You are leading a faction against others for all the territory you can gain. You must interact with them, thus the role playing. There is no mechanic in the game that can bypass this.

That, and negotiation isn't even a universal constant in no-randomness, high-player-interaction games. The whole Splotter catalogue purposefully eschews them both, with players reacting to the situations created by the actions of everyone else around the table, but rarely able to meaningfully make agreements with them that can be leveraged for victory. You win those games not by making agreements to do specific things with the other players, but by predicting their actions (and also, importantly how those actions will change in response to your actions).

I wasn't especially effusive earlier, but I put forward that roleplaying lives at the level of determining the goals/stakes of the game. I think you can choose it as the basis for strategic play (usually to your own detriment), but I don't think it's necessary, and I think it can't be necessary for the thing you're doing to be a board game and not a roleplaying game. As soon as the conditions that end the game and evaluate victory are specified entirely by the game itself and not by the players, I think roleplaying is no longer a required part of the activity.

You can't play D&D without setting a goal, either inherited from the adventure, based on character choices you've already made or some other thing that sits above the mechanical interaction level. If it was a board game, it would be one missing the "End Game" and "Victory" sections of the rulebook, just leaving all the rules for moving pieces around. Roleplaying is necessary to set those terms of engagement, while in a board game it's never required for them, because the game must tell you how it ends and how to evaluate success/failure for it to be playable at all.

Sure you can play D&D without setting a goal. 90% of its pages are combat mechanics. When the PCs or the monsters die, the game victory condition has been met. The next combat its the next game in the rotation.

My take is a pretty liberal one on role playing. I dont think it has to be as specific as many folks seem to it would seem.

 

[pemerton]

When you are deciding "its the best move I can think of" in D&D, does that remove the role playing?

If the best move invokes the player's fictional position, then no. It is a player's fictional position, as mediated by the (imaginary) circumstances in which their PC finds themself, that makes a RPG a role-playing game.