How do you roleplay your character?

[Aberzanzorax]

I realize that perhaps no two groups play RPGs the same way. However, when reading some other threads of late, I've been left wondering if there is a fundamental difference in how we perceive our characters.

(I'm not always great with polls, I'm sure I've left out some options. Please feel free to comment on what I've missed.)

I tried to create options from a pure immersion standpoint to a pure gaming standpoint. That might be flawed. I'm sure I'll hear about it.

 

[Stumblewyk]

I said that I "try to be the character" but honestly, it depends on the character and the group I'm playing with. The group I actually get to play with doesn't roleplay D&D much. It's much more of a cooperative exercise in getting through the next encounter while paying lip service to actually being "in character" by half the group and the DM. A couple of us have tried to introduce more "in character" play in that group and it's failed pretty terribly.

Ironically...as soon as we put D&D away and start playing the Dresden Files RPG things get better. There's still a lot of "I do [X]" by some people, but it makes it much easier for me to climb into my character's skin and be him.

 

[ExploderWizard]

It depends on the game (not just the system) and the group. I don't bother with development/motivational stuff for a one shot, there just isn't time.

For campaign play, the tone of the game determines how much roleplaying stuff beyond the adventures I might want to explore.

 

[S'mon]

"I AM Larsenio Roguespierre - ROGUE SPEAR!!!"

 

[Jhaelen]

I also voted for "I try to be the character" since it's the closest fit.

What I actually do is this:
First, I think about what my character would do.
Second, I try to think about what would be best for advancing the story.

Then I try to coincide one with the other and come up with a course of action that is as true to my character as possible without sabotaging the adventure/campaign.

Back in the days I would act out what my character would do - to hell with the consequences and the DM's plans!

These days I'm more interested in a fun adventure.

 

[saskganesh]

I want levels and gear and want to cooperatively win etc.

I also roleplay, "being the character", but that is secondary. My reasoning is that if I prioritised being the character, there is a fair enough chance that the character would not want to risk his life on risky adventures, dark dungeons and foolish quests with a bunch of other dangerous misfits. No... he would stay in town, get a good job with benefits and engage in whatever activities that would bring him maximum enjoyment and long life.

No, leave all that for the NPC's. My character is a protagonist, and if he is not an adventurer, there is not much a game. Wanting levels and gear etc. keeps the game in focus.

 

[Umbran]

I usually work with a mixture of pretending to be, viewing the character as a story element, and plaiying game with other people who are also trying to have fun.

There's what is right for the personality, what is right for the story, what is right for the game, and what is right for the social situation. Which takes precedence changes depending on details at the time.

 

[ThatGuyThere]

I also voted for "I try to be the character" since it's the closest fit.

What I actually do is this:
First, I think about what my character would do.
Second, I try to think about what would be best for advancing the story.

Then I try to coincide one with the other

Back in the days I would act out what my character would do - to hell with the consequences and the DM's plans!

This, for me, too. But I don't think, "I try to be the character" is the best fit. I think that way lies madness.

Characters are fickle things, and tend to do annoying things like rebel against storylines, leader-types, authority-figures, and any and all established guidelines. Players - and I include a younger version of me! - who hold "it's what the character would do" up as some sort of aegis against accusations of being a ... game-disruptive person ... are mistaken.

The character exists as an implement, a tool to be wielded in tandem by you the player and your Storyteller, to arrange for everyone around the table to have a good time. To allow your tool to rule you is folly bordering on lunacy.

I think the maturation from seeing the character as a gamepiece, with no more attachment than the shoe in Monopoly, to a being in their own right, fleshed out and with desire that sometimes (often!) run counter to creator and game intent, and finally, to an implement through which to put the creative enterprise you're engaged in into motion is a natural progression for most (not all) gamers. I've seen it in myself, and along stages in every gamer I've ever gamed with.

Not that I'm saying other styles are 'wrong'. They're <exactly> right - if that's what you're doing, right now, and it works for you. Just that, in my experience, the best gaming comes from a group that sees characters-as-characters-who-are-also-just-gamepieces.

 

[Mallus]

The poll needs a "more than one of these apply" option.

Sometimes I like to *BE* my character. But since he or she doesn't exist, I'm also forced to *be* the author of the character.

Which entails considering them as part of the story I'm helping to write. Which means I'm thinking in terms of what makes the most interesting story about them, what makes them a "good read".

Then, as good fictional characters, I start to identify with them, just like I do when reading a novel. But hey, I'm not just reading, I'm role-playing, so I can change the outcome of the story... and so on.

It's all a snake eating it's tail. Or a pendulum swinging between identification and authorship. Except when it's all about killing things, taking their stuff, and leveling.

Also, for the record, acting "out of character" is often the most realistic and believable thing a PC can do. Real people do it all the time. This has something to do with the way our behavior/self is both context-dependent and the product of a mess of emergent systems in our heads (and bodies).

 

[Odhanan]

The poll is indeed flawed, but to be honest, I'm not sure any poll would make the question justice short of letting the person who answers come up with his or her own option polls.

Personally, for instance, I cannot stand a story/narrative approach. That basically destroys the enthusiasm I have playing a role playing game. I play and "am" my character while playing. But I ALSO like to gain levels, I like to collaborate with my buddies around the game table to solve problems we are facing, I like strategy and tactics (though not in the form of square-counting or choices between mechanical options, but decisions my character takes in the game world directly, like make a plan to ambush monsters, choose the high ground, etc.), I like... lots of things in role playing games.

I think whatever predetermined option you'd put in the poll, you'd have people like me answering in a way that might seem strange or contradictory to another person. It's better to read the thread for the particulars.