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

[bsss]

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?

Yes, absolutely, and I don't think anyone needs to commit to one or the other, either. It's very much just a mentality --- a perspective, as you said --- and how often someone tends one way or the other, or if they're in a fairly equal (or tandem) mentality.

This is born from seeing the behaviors of my players and myself, where we are asking oneself about the nature of our character, and then describing what the character does, rather than answering, say, "what would I do in this character's shoes?".

 

[bsss]

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

I will admit I have been trying to not touch that word with a 10' pole. We have a thread for that already, lol.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

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?

I may have intended to write "many" instead of "any". In fact, I went ahead and corrected that because it is what I meant. But that's beside the point.

I wasn't saying there are no exceptions, or that everyone else does only one thing, one way, all the time. I don't think anyone here is saying that. There's always going to be exceptions. But no matter how much they commit themselves to a role at the table, they're still a real person at the table with other real people. They're still a player in the game with their own personal preferences and ideas about how to engage with the rules, the system, and everyone else. And that decision is ultimately a proclamation of how much personal control they are willing to surrender, and how much they are willing to accept the rules of the game, the outcome of the dice, and the rulings made by others.

That doesn't make them any better or worse as a player or a person. It's a personal choice that can affect everyone else at the table. When people use "roleplaying" as their defense to justify their inconsideration to put anyone else's needs or wants above their own, that's where these discussions take a turn. Not this one, of course, but I think you know which one(s).

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

Honestly, I'm hoping to beat someone else from bringing it on their own terms. If they do now, they're just more likely to be proving my point for me. At least, that's the goal... we shall see?

 

[payn]

I may have intended to write "many" instead of "any". In fact, I went ahead and corrected that because it is what I meant. But that's beside the point.

I wasn't saying there are no exceptions, or that everyone else does only one thing, one way, all the time. I don't think anyone here is saying that. There's always going to be exceptions. But no matter how much they commit themselves to a role at the table, they're still a real person at the table with other real people. They're still a player in the game with their own personal preferences and ideas about how to engage with the rules, the system, and everyone else. And that decision is ultimately a proclamation of how much personal control they are willing to surrender, and how much they are willing to accept the rules of the game, the outcome of the dice, and the rulings made by others.

That doesn't make them any better or worse as a player or a person. It's a personal choice that can affect everyone else at the table. When people use "roleplaying" as their defense to justify their inconsideration to put anyone else's needs or wants above their own, that's where these discussions take a turn. Not this one, of course, but I think you know which one(s).


Honestly, I'm hoping to beat someone else from bringing it on their own terms. If they do now, they're just more likely to be proving my point for me. At least, that's the goal... we shall see?

I'll be honest, I have zero idea what you are trying to contribute to this thread.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I'll be honest, I have zero idea what you are trying to contribute to this thread.

Nothing, I guess. I just had a different opinion from a different perspective I wanted to share. Maybe someone will get something out of it, or maybe nobody will. Just like everything else, I'll let others decide for themselves what my words are worth.

But in case I'm not being understood, or failing to express myself more clearly...

Sometimes those who talk about "roleplaying" aren't actually talking about roleplaying.

 

[aramis erak]

I am curious how players approach the interaction between themselves and their characters, assuming games where you would traditionally play or represent a sole character, in TTRPGs. I see in myself and others I play with two modes, and would like to see what people generally think

Pawn stance: Just pieces in a game is my dominant stance; I play for the game, and while I puppet my character, I don't inhabit it like actor stance, nor do I see it as a function of the narrative; narrative for me is best when it arises from play, rather than being an agenda in play.
I don't do things as a player because they're good story, nor because "That's what the character would do," but because it's the appropriate game state choice to accomplish the goals.

Pawn stance is fairly common in D&D from the assortment of players I've had over the years, relatively rare in the storygames advocates I've known.

The extreme of pawn stance is no non-mechanical narration and no in character dialogue.

 

[Incenjucar]

When I play, I am the writer and actor for the character. Their decisions are driven by how I would write them, and their voice and motion is based on how I would act them. I am there to bring them to life and leave everyone at the table with a fun memory. I of course make sure to only play characters who will contribute to the story in a useful and non-disruptive way.

 

[Lanefan]

I know some players like to approach avatar like experiencing a fantasy world via a character. Imagining seeing what they see, doing specifically what they do. My approach is more setting directed as I want to explore the world/setting and affect it via my character's actions.

For me, both of these are true; I prefer to explore and (maybe) affect the world/setting from "inside" my character.

This does not, however, mean I need or require loads of character background. All I need to know right up front is why the character is here and what it is either doing now or hopes to be doing next; the rest can and does fill itself in over time.

 

[Lanefan]

I would frame that this way:

For some people, their character inhabitation process can get disrupted when an external source conflicts with their already created mental model. So yes I think this can happen, but the 'out' is to simply not commit to a mental model that game mechanics can put in dispute.

Or just force the game mechanics to bend to your will. The mechanics are there to serve the table, not the other way around.

It's not really inhabitation vs not, it's what are the constraints around your mental model of the character - and that's most often the source of dissonance - especially for players that have internalized a specific brand of mental model where X specific facts are typically non-disputable.

Well put, and I'd be one of those players.

 

[Lanefan]

As an example:

Consider playing a character in 2e Ravenloft that you mentally modeled as never being frightened. The mechanics were such that you could easily become frightened and flee/faint/scream/freeze, etc. The dissonance is not because the mechanics have psycological fear, it's because your mental model fails when they are invoked.

The answer: if you are playing 2e Ravenloft, accept the mechanics and don't build a character that needs a mental model that the mechanics almost certainly will push against.

This assumes the players know up front that the whole campaign will be set in Ravenloft and can tailor their characters accordingly (be it to fight against the setting's precepts or lean into them or just ignore them, whatever).

More common IME, however, is the type of campaign where - to continue with your example - you mentally model and then play a character as being fearless, which works out fine everywhere else, and then the campaign visits somewhere like Ravenloft* just for a while as that happens to be the setting for this one adventure out of many.

Now what happens?

* - in the game I play in, the Far Realm takes this role; same idea though.