How do you roleplay your character?

[Aus_Snow]

What my character would do, he or she does do. Simple as that.

There is what could be seen as a caveat, or even a "conceit" of sorts, if you like, and that is that I tend not to play total a-holes, annoying disruptive little... blessings, or anything else that might, on the flip side, give *me* screaming fits or possibly lead to OOC violence.

Unless, I suppose, the campaign called for that. Really cannot remember the last time that might've been the case, however.

But I don't see "advancing the story" or whatever as remotely relevant, unless you're playing a story game, rather than a RPG. And the other stuff is equally metagamey, if not more so, and so doesn't appeal to me at all.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

In terms of a single option that represents my preference I chose being the character. Voice, accent, mannerisms, attitude, intelligence, wisdom and perspective. On the way to a gaming session, I'll voice things out in the car and get into character and then switch it off. Then at the game, switch the character back on and off as appropriate. If I'm DMing, I'll generally do the same thing but the workload in the car is a little busier.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I voted that there wasn't an option for me: I'm somewhere between the first 2 options. I try to think like the PC, but in the authorial sense. I'm not pretending to be him, her or it, but I'm trying to make them act in accord with the way their personality dictates.

 

[pemerton]

I went for the second option as closest to my preferences. I often like to be my character - which, by the way, I don't think always requires immersion, because I can ask "What would my guy do?" in the 3rd person and respond appropriately - but the conception of my character that shapes the answer to this question would be one already made up with story drivers in mind.

I liked LostSoul's version of the 3rd answer, too. But I tend to think of the game-related goals as "producing a thematically interesting story", which is why I went for the 2nd option.

 

[steenan]

I voted for "being the character", because I think it's quite often the dominant factor in how I play. But it is definitely not the only one.

The way I play is a mix of several approaches, in different proportions, depending on what I play and who I play with:

1. I immerse myself in my character and in the game world, imagining myself as someone else than I am and acting appropriately. This approach aims for emotional investment in the character and events of play and fits well with freeform games (or games with simple, flexible and non-metagame rules).

2. I express my character and his personality through important choices (moral ones, not tactical ones); to some extent, I use him as a vehicle to ask meaningful questions and answer them. There is a lot of emotional engagement, but usually less character immersion; full psychological realism is less important than making the game interesting and dramatic. This approach is good for character-driven and character-centered games and it works well for systems with metagame elements.

3. I aim for cinematic play. Colorful descriptions, fun one-liners, high-drama conversations. There is a lot of acting, but not much immersion; I usually think "what would be interesting to do now", not "what I would do" or "what would be efficient to do". It works well in games with a lot of player narration and abstract, metagame mechanics (conflict resolution, various kinds of plot-editing points etc.) that leaves the details to players. It works even better in games that actively reward aiming for drama and cinematics. Also, it is my only mode of play compatible with linear or railroaded games - as long as the GM keeps to the style.

4. I aim for in-game success. I don't like uber builds and finding loopholes in the system. It usually ends with a character that has a single unstoppable solution to all problems - and that is just not fun. But I like playing my characters to the max - using all resources I have to the best effect. I like when a game challenges me (player, not only a character) while I use my wit and creativity to find ways around the obstacles. This style fits games with detailed, non-abstract mechanics, especially when played in goal-oriented fashion.

 

[R-Hero]

I try to..

...pretend to BE the character.

...while I...

...view the character as a story element and try to tell a story, focusing on their role within it.

...so I/we can...

...attempt to accomplish a set of game related goals (treasure, levelling) within a story context.

...and be rewarded with...

...levels, gear, and to collaboratively "win" as much as that is possible.

I guess I need to click 4 times on said poll because I play a blend of most of the poll options.

 

[Wik]

I tend to play jerks. Because I like being a jerk in a situation where no one is gonna beat my skull in with a brick.

Also, I enjoy playing flawed characters. I'm very much an "outlier" in terms of what I enjoy playing. My favourite thing is to be a character that is a sidekick type character, that makes the rest of the party look and feel more heroic. I want to play Jayne Cobb so that the guy playing Malcolm Reynolds can feel like a hero. I'd rather be Sullah or Short Round as opposed to Indiana. Or Chewbacca instead of Han Solo. Or Gaff instead of Deckard.

Hm. Maybe I just don't like Harrison Ford?

 

[Gryph]

I voted for none of these. I use aspects of the first 3 answers. Action choice at a tactical level (combat, skill challenge) is done from a game piece/story element perspective. The narration and NPC interaction elements I try to assume the guise of my character's personality. Goals and quests and other strategic elements I try to make decisions based on some approximation of "being" my character.

With this switch of mode during play I also tend to freely switch between first person and third person voice as well.

 

[Dice4Hire]

My roleplaying varies a lot from my face to face and Yahoogroups games.

AT home, my roleplaying is simple, with story more important, and minor bits of roleplaying glossed over. Basically not a lot of roleplaying, like speaking in character, or such.

On Yahoogroups, I do a lot more character stuff. And I expect my players to do a lot more also. That is the strength of the online game, time for roleplaying.