Help me encourage my "slayers" to roleplay

[Umbran]

Secondly, roleplaying means an avatar (persona actually), not a fictional character, so don't worry how them not "roleplaying" because they prefer combat or don't talk "in character". "Out of character" combat is roleplaying too.

Well, if you are going to pull up a Wikipedia page that's specifically about psychology for support, I'll pull up the Wikipedia page on Roleplaying:

"In roleplaying, participants adopt and act out the role of characters, or parts, that may have personalities, motivations, and backgrounds different from their own. Roleplaying, also known as RP to some, is like being in an improvisational drama or free-form theater, in which the participants are the actors who are playing parts, and the audience...."


It then goes on to reference psychology, but is not limited to the psych definition.

Which is not to say that choices in combat don't constitute roleplaying. But please don't expect us to limit our definitions to what the psych people use. Whether or not our games are theatre, they aren't formal counseling sessions, either. The psych definitions do not apply.

 

[howandwhy99]

Well, if you are going to pull up a Wikipedia page that's specifically about psychology for support, I'll pull up the Wikipedia page on Roleplaying:

"In roleplaying, participants adopt and act out the role of characters, or parts, that may have personalities, motivations, and backgrounds different from their own. Roleplaying, also known as RP to some, is like being in an improvisational drama or free-form theater, in which the participants are the actors who are paying parts, and the audience...."

Wikipedia is wrong and gives various answers on roleplaying (and not just roleplaying) depending upon the page you read. I wouldn't trust anything there without an outside source to back it up. And then verify the credibility of the source.

It then goes on to reference psychology, but is not limited to the psych definition.

Yes it is. Roleplaying is only the playing of a social role. Psychiatrists came up with it as a methodology to test people in social roles in order to differentiate roleplaying from acting. Acting may be used in the methodology, but roleplaying includes the scope of playing a social role. Acting is the playing of a fictional character. The only reason we use words like persona is because social scientists like Carl Jung titled our changes in behavior as different personas of our same self. Actors reference this persona as to what they change to adopt the character's persona as given in the work they are portraying. Perhaps i f you could tell me what you define roleplaying as and how it is different from theatre, I could help clear up any misconceptions?

Which is not to say that choices in combat don't constitute roleplaying. But please don't expect us to limit our definitions to what the psych people use. Whether or not our games are theatre, they aren't formal counseling sessions, either. The psych definitions do not apply.

If you read more of that page, you will see job training and sports scrimmages are roleplaying as well in the same way you and I use the term roleplaying. The only way we really differentiate from the "psych definition" is our roles are often fictional, meaning we need a simulated reality in order to play a wizard. This is most obviously seen in computer roleplaying games termed roleplaying simulations when not dealing with fictional roles (not MMO wizards, but flight simulator pilot training).

EDIT: That link is pure comedy. The word ROLE is hyperlinked to social role and the word CHARACTER is hyperlinked theatrical role. It contradicts itself in the first sentence of its' definition.

 

[Mallus]

You had no proof then either.

What would you consider 'proof'? Should I post some writing from a discipline that has little or nothing to do with role-playing games?

My practical experience has been that gamers treat their characters as both avatars and as fictional characters that they are both the author and performer of. I've found this stance repeated in all the published gaming material that I've read, most recently the 4e DMG.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

Secondly, roleplaying means an avatar (persona actually), not a fictional character, so don't worry how them not "roleplaying" because they prefer combat or don't talk "in character". "Out of character" combat is roleplaying too.

Define roleplaying however you like, but doctorhook wants his players to engage in activities other than out-of-character descriptions of combat maneuvers.

Sherm: 5 months. Flamboyant, ridiculous sort of person in RL; really enjoys background story and lore, but is not very adept at applying it in-game. Has trouble keeping his own qualities out of his character. Plays a (low-Int) Dwarf Paladin of Bahamut. This should never be a problem in a roleplaying game. This isn't theatre after all.

It's a problem if doctorhook finds that kind of play unsatisfying. Whether or not it bothers you to have players project their own qualities onto a character, it clearly matters to doctorhook. Belittling his preferences isn't advice.

To doctorhook:
There are many ways to move players toward more character-based games, but none will work if the players aren't willing to try it. Kyle is likely to be a major force working against you. When I first started gaming in college, my group was very hack-and-slash. As my tastes changed, it became more and more difficult to keep my buddy Pete interested and engaged, because he simply enjoyed the problem-solving, tactical elements much more. Eventually, we just stopped gaming together, because our tastes differed so drastically. We're still friends; we just do other stuff when we hang out.

If you want to start playing in a different fashion, you may find some of your players aren't into it. Make sure you remember to tend to the friendship when your gaming tastes start drifting apart, and don't count yourself as a failure if Kyle doesn't want to join you for D&D anymore.

 

[Mallus]

Roleplaying is only the playing of a social role.

How can you exclude the playing of a character role, seeing as that also goes on, with some impunity I might add, during role-playing gaming?

Psychiatrists came up with it as a methodology to test people in social roles in order to differentiate roleplaying from acting.

This definition would be more valuable if we were discussing psychology.

How, you wouldn't happen to be a prescriptivist, would you?

 

[Rechan]

Everything Hella Tellah just said.

Keep in mind that you can try to passively engineer the situation to try and coax roleplay out of the players, but nothing beats being up front and saying "Guys, I'd like to inject a little more roleplaying into the game."

If some members of the group are resisting, there are ways around this. One solution to this is to offer smoke breaks (or meal breaks, or whatever) and take the players who want to roleplay aside, and play out a little conversation between them and an NPC.

You can also do this between sessions - call a member up on the phone and have a one-on-one RP convo with him (no real dice rolls necessary, or you could roll them yourself). The same could be done for email.

 

[Mallus]

You can also do this between sessions - call a member up on the phone and have a one-on-one RP convo with him (no real dice rolls necessary, or you could roll them yourself). The same could be done for email.

We use messageboards --with a built-in dice roller-- for our recent campaigns. They're terrific for in-depth character roleplaying.

 

[Humanaut]

Lots of good ideas above. Talking directly, to the group and/ or individually is good I think to get clear about what you're thinking and wanting in a game.

I like the NPC's that have direct knowledge that will make the PC's lives easier. If ignored or killed, the PC's suffer, small or great depending on what they know.

I read it somewhere here before I think, and it's not too far off the mark: The Slaughter Will Continue Until Play Improves

Love it.

Good luck!

Edit: Not to say purposefully kill PC's, but that they get hurt/ killed easier with such a lack of information from NPC's. Just to be clear. :^)

 

[howandwhy99]

What would you consider 'proof'? Should I post some writing from a discipline that has little or nothing to do with role-playing games?

My practical experience has been that gamers treat their characters as both avatars and as fictional characters that they are both the author and performer of. I've found this stance repeated in all the published gaming material that I've read, most recently the 4e DMG.

I'm not badmouthing WotC. But they don't get to redefine a word at their leisure either. In truth, you won't find contradictory evidence that isn't capable of being proven false. That's my point.

Define roleplaying however you like, but doctorhook wants his players to engage in activities other than out-of-character descriptions of combat maneuvers.

Thanks for bringing us back on topic.

To OP:
I suggest you work this out beforehand as a group. However, if your players do not wish to do this (and by your descriptions at least some do not), then I would not try and force them during play. Talk about what you want outside of the game and understand none are beholden to anyone else at the table. This is outside the scope of roleplaying is all I was saying.

It's a problem if doctorhook finds that kind of play unsatisfying. Whether or not it bothers you to have players project their own qualities onto a character, it clearly matters to doctorhook. Belittling his preferences isn't advice.

Reading my quote back I don't see how I was belittling him. That was certainly not my intention at all.

How can you exclude the playing of a character role, seeing as that also goes on, with some impunity I might add, during role-playing gaming?

When you say roleplaying gaming you exclusively mean games with fictional roles. Pretending to be a different person while acting out these fictional roles is extraordinarily common in fictional roleplaying games. But, contrary to popular opinion, you do not have to pretend to be a fictional character to play a fictional role. Nor is not playing a fictional character somehow "not roleplaying". Folks who say this are confused as to how roleplaying and theatrical acting are different.

This definition would be more valuable if we were discussing psychology.

How, you wouldn't happen to be a prescriptivist, would you?

The definition of roleplaying as playing a social role covers all version of D&D and probably 99% of all RPGs published or played. It is not exclusive to the social sciences. Using language accurately in a niche hobby that doesn't know itself isn't being a grammatical prescriptivist. I am repeating what was forgotten about 15-20 years ago or so. I believe the current onfusion in the field may partially be why White Wolf chose to call their games Storygames instead of RPGs as they knew enough about what roleplaying is to understand they were making rules for acting in character as well as playing roles.

 

[Umbran]

I wouldn't trust anything there without an outside source to back it up. And then verify the credibility of the source.

And yet, you used it as a reference yourself.

Yes it is. Roleplaying is only the playing of a social role.

A great many words in the English language have multiple definitions. Simple assertion will not prove that Roleplaying has only one. Maybe, at one time, it had only one - but language changes with time and use. You have no "proof" that it has not done so, while I have evidence (that Wikipedia page) that there's use beyond yours.

Somehow, I don't think it likely that a bunch of guys expanding wargames into a new realm were particularly worried about sticking to the psych definition.

EDIT: That link is pure comedy. The word ROLE is hyperlinked to social role and the word CHARACTER is hyperlinked theatrical role. It contradicts itself in the first sentence of its' definition.

The entire English language is pure comedy, and that's a great thing. If you wish to deny some of its richness, that's your own concern. It is, however, unenforceable.