How do you roleplay? --- Avatar character vs. narrative subject character [+]

[Corinnguard]

I am somewhere in the middle here thanks to my DM. He not only wants us to role-play as our characters, but he also wants us to focus on them narratively by thinking about their backstories, how they met one another, and what they do in their downtime between missions.

 

[Breaking Star Games]

I actually don't find switching between first and third person descriptions changes my mentality, so its hard for me to identify with either. Sometimes I do third person because as a GM, you are almost always using third person, but usually its for clarity's sake to distinguish that I, as the Player, am fine and love the roleplay and scene but the PC is upset over a situation. I also switch between direct and indirect dialogue depending on how well I can improvise dialogue that fits.

I tend towards Actor Stance but I do see myself often immersed in the character's place especially when using Theater of the Mind, so I guess I am somewhat both or neither. But even then I don't really believe in full immersion. For example, nobody good intentioned would ever justify doing something awful to another Player "because it's what my character would do."

As for the mentality, I think AngryGM described it best. The relationship of Player and PC feels a lot like a Trill from Star Trek (mostly DS9). A joined Trill is two entities, a host (the attempted PC with their traits and motives) and symbiont (the Player), but the joining results in a unique synthesis of both, which is where the actually roleplayed PC comes to life since all the traits and motives you intended for your PC are filtered by your own thinking.

And that takes a lot of time and effort to get there. Its why I've stopped attempting to frontload my PCs with many character traits based on their background, class, race, etc. Nowadays, I like to have a very basic idea of a trait - a demeanor and a motive. Then you also have some kind of role maybe based on a class or suite of skills. Honestly putting less thought in is better.

Then play to find out because you try your best to make decisions as that PC asking yourself "what would you do if you were [role] with [motivation]?" And the effort comes in on reflecting on those decisions - what surprised you and what are you curious about? Then you can also recontextualize to prescribe decision to your PC and identify what that means about the PC.

Then you do that with the other PCs and in character satisfy your curiosity about their characters to really reveal more about both your PC and their PC through that interaction in a real Play to Lift playstyle.

 

[Barner Cobblewood]

I don't understand what the jargon of avatar / narrative subject means exactly, so I haven't answered the poll, but the easiest analogy for how I play the PC is that it is like a token being moved on a board, and the token has to be in play for me to enjoy the game, principally by having fun with the other players. This is an analogy, not a formal definition - of course the board is not a board and no token is used much of the time.

And I don't think that is the game. I understand the game by another analogy - the game is like a conversation with several other people about a shared imaginarium where stuff happens, and I play to enjoy pleasant friendly conversations about that. Maybe I would understand the jargon better if you explained how your model would apply to engaging in conversation.

Expanding on this a bit, I agree with I think @Breaking Star Games is saying: I enjoy conversations better when the interlocutors are thinking and listening to one another, and less when they are all only thinking about what they have to say. I might be wrong, because I have no idea what < Play to Lift playstyle > means.

 

[Breaking Star Games]

because I have no idea what < Play to Lift playstyle > means.

Some jargon that boils down to making the other players (and the GM is a player too) look good and shine at what their characters are doing.

If they tell an inspiring speech, your PC is inspired. Your roleplay validates their intentions even if they are looking for some dramatic tragedy where your character may be boo-ing them.

 

[Piperken]

I picked the equal option.

In getting to that choice, what considerations came to mind were:

• Play History. Younger me, the one that started playing ttrpgs, would've picked the "avatar choice." I was very reactive as a player and primarily played in traditional playstyle games.
• Present Me. I oscillate between these two points? Having a better understanding and awareness of what kinds of experiences one can have in games, I recognize what things I want out of a game as a whole or in particular moments. To what degree I am more or less in each of these categories sometimes will remain constant (i.e. through a campaign, through an adventure, etc.). Sometimes, it may radically change in the middle of a session.
• The Game Matters. If I am playing with a group of people, I try to dial up or down how I interact with the conversation at the table, based on what bits in the moment I pick up from everyone. This is to help maintain table cohesion and make things easier for the table runner and players. If I am participating in a pbp game that is a duet, the narrative category carries more weight.

 

[bsss]

I don't understand what the jargon of avatar / narrative subject means exactly, so I haven't answered the poll, but the easiest analogy for how I play the PC is that it is like a token being moved on a board, and the token has to be in play for me to enjoy the game, principally by having fun with the other players. This is an analogy, not a formal definition - of course the board is not a board and no token is used much of the time.

It's my own made up jargon, so it's fine to not understand it; I took a shot and I don't think it completely landed, so no problem. =) I would say in response this: when the token moves on the board, is it because you (imaginatively) were the token and knew how to move, or because you knew how the token would move?

 

[DEFCON 1]

For me playing a D&D character is like being in a play. I speak and act as the character through most moments when we are "in-world".

We of course occasionally will talk, plan, and discuss things "out of character"... but it is acknowledged that those bits aren't actually happening "in-world". It also explains why we don't use "downtime" as a game concept, as anything that is happening with our characters that impacts our characters is roleplayed out in real time. We will "skip ahead" the timeline for sleeping, travel etc., but downtime actions like shopping, training, carousing, we play those out.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I may have an entirely different perspective on this, so take this as an observation not an argument.

The premise behind the question posed here isn't really about roleplaying. As a derivative from another conversation elsewhere, it's more about the willingness (or more correctly, the unwillingness) of a player to compromise or accept consequences from anyone other than themself. The reason that other discussion is never going to end on its own is because nobody is actually going to admit that. They'll just continue skirting the heart of the matter behind more defensible buzzwords, like roleplaying and player agency.

RPGs don't inherently tell people how to play them; they only tell them what to expect. Every person, group, and table ultimately decides how they are going to play, both as individuals and as a group. The rules and results require interpretation and application, which are discussed (or negotiated) between the participants at the table.

How you choose to roleplay your character is often the only bargaining chip you have when you are not in the GM seat. Or at least, that is how some players view their games.

What it really comes down to is whether you decide in the game is affecting you (the Player), or you (your Character). In either case, you are always deciding how much you are willing to accept the rules or rulings made during play, which feeds directly into your own sense of agency.

There's no wrong or right away about this unless we know what are the real motives behind the Player. Most players generally do not want to lose or fail on someone else's decisions. They may not be opposed to failure or loss as part of the game, but not in these types of games where they feel they have more freedom to write their own outcomes and narratives. So the argument becomes less about "It's what my character would do", or "That's how I roleplay my characters", and more like "You can't tell me how to control my character!", or "Why are you trying to take away my fun?!".

To me, the real question being posed here is: "Who are you portraying when you are playing a character in an RPG: your character, or you?"

I can't see how any many of us are not doing both at all times. We might have a preference during different sotuations or systems. But it also varies with the groups we meet at different tables. Getting to the heart of the matter, it is not uncommon to see individuals claim either position or stance to protect their interests and preferences, whatever those happen to be. That is their part of the negotiations that happen in every scene, every encounter, and every session.

That's really what these games are about, isn't it? Collaboration, compromise, and conflict. Choose wisely.

 

[payn]

I can't see how any of us are not doing both at all times.

I can. Ive ran into a table a time or two when the players arrive and sit down they become the characters for the duration of the session. First person only, and no talk outside of engaging the game. You are expected to feel as the character as you use it as an avatar. Its rare, but ive seen it (and bounced off it). Generally, though I agree with you that folks engage the game in both perspectives at times. One a little more, the other perhaps a little less. So, I took the question as where do you land most of the time?

 

[FrogReaver]

I may have an entirely different perspective on this, so take this as an observation not an argument.

The premise behind the question posed here isn't really about roleplaying. As a derivative from another conversation elsewhere, it's more about the willingness (or more correctly, the unwillingness) of a player to compromise or accept consequences from anyone other than themself. The reason that other discussion is never going to end on its own is because nobody is actually going to admit that. They'll just continue skirting the heart of the matter behind more defensible buzzwords, like roleplaying and player agency.

RPGs don't inherently tell people how to play them; they only tell them what to expect. Every person, group, and table ultimately decides how they are going to play, both as individuals and as a group. The rules and results require interpretation and application, which are discussed (or negotiated) between the participants at the table.

How you choose to roleplay your character is often the only bargaining chip you have when you are not in the GM seat. Or at least, that is how some players view their games.

What it really comes down to is whether you decide in the game is affecting you (the Player), or you (your Character). In either case, you are always deciding how much you are willing to accept the rules or rulings made during play, which feeds directly into your own sense of agency.

There's no wrong or right away about this unless we know what are the real motives behind the Player. Most players generally do not want to lose or fail on someone else's decisions. They may not be opposed to failure or loss as part of the game, but not in these types of games where they feel they have more freedom to write their own outcomes and narratives. So the argument becomes less about "It's what my character would do", or "That's how I roleplay my characters", and more like "You can't tell me how to control my character!", or "Why are you trying to take away my fun?!".

To me, the real question being posed here is: "Who are you portraying when you are playing a character in an RPG: your character, or you?"

I can't see how any of us are not doing both at all times. We might have a preference during different sotuations or systems. But it also varies with the groups we meet at different tables. Getting to the heart of the matter, it is not uncommon to see individuals claim either position or stance to protect their interests and preferences, whatever those happen to be. That is their part of the negotiations that happen in every scene, every encounter, and every session.

That's really what these games are about, isn't it? Collaboration, compromise, and conflict. Choose wisely.

We were having a nice normal conversation. Why oh why would you go and bring the ‘A’ word into it.