Do you "roleplay" in non-TTRPG Games?

[Reynard]

I mean, it does a little, right? Imagine a D&D party is fighting an Ogre, and the Swordmaster fighter decides to switch to a ranged weapon, shoot, then step backwards a bit, because then the Ogre would need to waste a turn approaching, but the Barbarian says "I'm a barbarian, I charge in right away."

I don't think it's fair to say the Fighter isn't roleplaying, but it does seem like he's roleplaying less than the barbarian is. If the GM were to hand out inspiration to one of them, he would probably pick the barbarian, even if the fighter character has established himself as a tactician. My opinion isn't set in stone, so I'm curious what other people think on this.

This strikes me as arbitrary and would irritate me as a player.

 

[Gradine]

 

[stonehead]

I mean, that just sounds like using good sense and tactics in a combat. I really dont like framing role playing as a competition. Different folks have different preferences and I want to encourage them as opposed to direct them to the "right" way. I assume you are trying to do two things here? The first is compare role play instances for contrast. The second is to demonstrate meta-gaming impact on role playing.

I didn't explain it well, but and important part of my example was the way that 5E movement costs either nothing, or an entire turn, with a bright line in between. If the Ogre is 25 feet away, it can charge you, then attack as if it started its turn adjacent to you. If it's 35 ft away though, then it has to spend an entire turn doing nothing but closing the distance. The thought process of "Let me step back 10 feet, because then he'll waste an entire turn, instead of nothing" doesn't seem like roleplaying, because it's interacting with the turn structure in a very mechanical way. If it was just "Shoot and make him come to us" then I would agree with you that it's just good tactics.

It's a good point that roleplaying shouldn't be framed as a competition, I just couldn't think of another way to say that it's not a black-and-white either you're roleplaying, or you aren't. Just as a gut instinct, if roleplaying results in optimal game tactics, it feels less like roleplaying than inefficient tactics do.

I may have a better example. I once ran an encounter in a 4 level tower. The main party was fighting a werewolf on the roof. One of the PCs was approaching the tower entrance on the ground. The PC on the ground was attacked at the same time and in desperate need of rescue. One of the players determined that it would take too long to descend 4 levels of stairs and since simply swan diving off the roof would cause 4D6 damage the PC could take it.

While mechanically true, and the most expedient way down, it felt very meta-gamey to me. I tend not to like this kind of thing, but I stop short of saying it isnt role playing. Just because I have my own preferences, doesn't mean I think they determine what is and isnt RP.

I agree, but I do think this comes down to genre convention as much as it does meta-gaming. Jumping down a four story building and suffering minimal injury is very unrealistic, but it would be fine in a superhero game or action movie. If anything, it could reinforce that your character is impulsive and reckless.

Math'ing out the damage to find the optimal move definitely doesn't feel like roleplaying to me either.

This is an interesting observation. I think in D&D there is often a wall between mechanics and RP. How comfortable a person/group is crossing over will vary. The games you mention intentionally marry the two so its not really up to interpretation. My observation is that D&D (outside combat) is intentionally vague on many game subjects. I think it offers flexibility at the cost of direct focus. Soem folks like other games because of their design specificity and play them instead. Even folks who stick with D&D often complain that it doesnt pick a lane on many subjects, though I think its wise not to. YMMV

5E does a lot of work to tear down that wall when compared to 3, 3.5, and 4, too. That's why the rules are so vague, and there are so many questions online about what should and shouldn't give advantage.

It's ultimately a comprimise. Flat free movement distances and linear fall damage calculations both simplify the game, making it easier to play, at the expense of some depth and realism.

 

[payn]

I didn't explain it well, but and important part of my example was the way that 5E movement costs either nothing, or an entire turn, with a bright line in between. If the Ogre is 25 feet away, it can charge you, then attack as if it started its turn adjacent to you. If it's 35 ft away though, then it has to spend an entire turn doing nothing but closing the distance. The thought process of "Let me step back 10 feet, because then he'll waste an entire turn, instead of nothing" doesn't seem like roleplaying, because it's interacting with the turn structure in a very mechanical way. If it was just "Shoot and make him come to us" then I would agree with you that it's just good tactics.

It's a good point that roleplaying shouldn't be framed as a competition, I just couldn't think of another way to say that it's not a black-and-white either you're roleplaying, or you aren't. Just as a gut instinct, if roleplaying results in optimal game tactics, it feels less like roleplaying than inefficient tactics do.
I agree, but I do think this comes down to genre convention as much as it does meta-gaming. Jumping down a four story building and suffering minimal injury is very unrealistic, but it would be fine in a superhero game or action movie. If anything, it could reinforce that your character is impulsive and reckless. Math'ing out the damage to find the optimal move definitely doesn't feel like roleplaying to me either.

I guess when it comes to D&D, I view the combat as "under the hood" and I dont really role play that part of the game. Though, if I think about it D&D combatants spend a s-ton of time doing it. They (the character) would know how to make optimal combat moves. If I cant put two and two together between the role play and the mechanics, im gonna use a system that does. I just see D&D mechanics and RP divide as the cost of admission. Feel is a little too arbitrary a target for me to go by.

5E does a lot of work to tear down that wall when compared to 3, 3.5, and 4, too. That's why the rules are so vague, and there are so many questions online about what should and shouldn't give advantage.

It's ultimately a compromise. Flat free movement distances and linear fall damage calculations both simplify the game, making it easier to play, at the expense of some depth and realism.

I think 5Es attempts to take down the wall are half-hearted and with good reason. Folks are not shy about their thoughts on inspiration and any social mechanics in D&D. So, D&D remains this wargamer and role play exercise thats easy to hack if you are so inclined.

 

[pemerton]

Imagine a D&D party is fighting an Ogre, and the Swordmaster fighter decides to switch to a ranged weapon, shoot, then step backwards a bit, because then the Ogre would need to waste a turn approaching, but the Barbarian says "I'm a barbarian, I charge in right away."

I don't think it's fair to say the Fighter isn't roleplaying, but it does seem like he's roleplaying less than the barbarian is. If the GM were to hand out inspiration to one of them, he would probably pick the barbarian, even if the fighter character has established himself as a tactician.

Robin Laws has an essay in the Over the Edge rulebook, called "The Literary Edge". It includes the following passage (on p 193 of my 20th anniversary edition):

Role-playing game changed forever the first time a player said, "I know it's the best strategy, but my character wouldn't do that." Suddenly an aesthetic concern had been put ahead of a gaming one . . . At that unheralded moment, role-playing stopped being a game at all and began quietly evolving into a narrative art form . . .​

Prioritising aesthetic concerns over gaming ones is one way of playing a RPG. But I don't think that is is the meaning of roleplaying.

 

[stonehead]

Feel is a little too arbitrary a target for me to go by.

Prioritising aesthetic concerns over gaming ones is one way of playing a RPG. But I don't think that is is the meaning of roleplaying.

Maybe I was misinformed. I was using "roleplaying" to mean "making decisions as if you were your character, instead of as yourself." That is more or less the same as "I know the best strategy, but my character wouldn't do that." To me, if you look at two people, and one of them says describes himself as roleplaying and the other describes himself as not roleplaying, it would be strange if their decisions looked the same to an outside perspective.

Is there a better meaning of roleplaying that everyone else is using?

 

[payn]

Maybe I was misinformed. I was using "roleplaying" to mean "making decisions as if you were your character, instead of as yourself." That is more or less the same as "I know the best strategy, but my character wouldn't do that." To me, if you look at two people, and one of them says describes himself as roleplaying and the other describes himself as not roleplaying, it would be strange if their decisions looked the same to an outside perspective.

Why wouldn’t your character, an experienced tactical fighter, know how exploit their opponents and battlefield position?

It’s arbitrary because its explainable in the fiction, yet it feels wrong. I’ve been there and it’s an argument that never ends because your feeling can’t be right to anyone but you and folks with similar preferences.

Is there a better meaning of roleplaying that everyone else is using?

Role playing and a role playing game have different aspects. There isn’t a right and wrong way to role play but meta gaming might make you feel that way.

 

[Pedantic]

Role playing and a role playing game have different aspects. There isn’t a right and wrong way to role play but meta gaming might make you feel that way.

I don't think we can meaningfully proceed without a clearer shared definition of "role-playing."

 

[Deset Gled]

Maybe I was misinformed. I was using "roleplaying" to mean "making decisions as if you were your character, instead of as yourself." That is more or less the same as "I know the best strategy, but my character wouldn't do that." To me, if you look at two people, and one of them says describes himself as roleplaying and the other describes himself as not roleplaying, it would be strange if their decisions looked the same to an outside perspective.

Is there a better meaning of roleplaying that everyone else is using?

I think that definition is good enough. However, I disagree with the premise "I know the best strategy, but my character wouldn't do that." I generally don't play board games that have an absolute "best" strategy. A game where there is only one "best" move gets pretty boring pretty fast.

When I'm talking about roleplaying with board games, I talking about roleplaying the decisions that do not have a single "best" answer. In games with a social aspect (which is most of them), this involves how your character interacts with other people. In games with strategic decisions, this involves thinking about how your character would plan for different scenarios. And in games with a randomization factor, this involves how your character reacts, and how they handle different risks. These are all cases where there are a spectrum of "good" choices, not one "best" one. Also, it should be understood that this is talking about things on a large scale; there may be individual small choices where there is an obvious best choice, but those aren't the ones worth thinking about.

I should also say that I would expect people to play competently even when they're roleplaying. In any game, whether it's a TTRPG or a board game, playing solely to be disruptive and actively refusing the goals of the game is the mark of a problem player. In all of the examples that I gave earlier, roleplaying players should still be trying to win. Even the person roleplaying as Greenland may have been making some unorthodox decisions, but they were still playing the game for real (e.g. planning card use properly, etc).

 

[pemerton]

Is there a better meaning of roleplaying that everyone else is using?

I can't comment on anyone else, but when I think of roleplaying, I think of what is distinctive about the play of a RPG from the perspective of player participants. And that is:

*The player's "moves" - both what is permitted, and what will result from it - are shaped by the player's fictional position;

*The player's fictional position is centred on a particular imagined character (their PC) in particular imaginary circumstances.​

The first of these features can be found in some wargames - eg in some free kriegsspiel-type wargames, adjudicating whether my tanks can cross the river will depend, at least in part, on extrapolating from imagined stuff (like the capabilities of the tanks, the depth of the river, etc). This contrasts with purely mechanical resolution (of the sort found in some wargames and most boardgames, for instance).

The character-centric aspect of the second feature is quite common in games: many games have the player "inhabit" or identify with/as a character. But in a RPG, the character is an imagined person in imagined circumstances which thereby establish the player's fictional position.

It's the combination of these two elements that I think is at the heart of RPGing. The GM in a RPG isn't always roleplaying in this sense (sometimes they might be, such as in some contexts of playing NPCs); but it's at the heart of what the players do.

In playing a boardgame which permits character identification, I can make choices that are suboptimal from the point of view of game play, because it's what I imagine "my" character would do. But the stuff I'm imagining about my character doesn't shape my available moves, nor the outcomes of them; those are determined, mechanically, by the rules. (In other words, there is no fictional position.) RPGs are different from this; and that's what I think of, when I think of roleplaying.