D&D 5E How do your roleplay?

[EzekielRaiden]

For me, the core of roleplay revolves around determining a character's values and personality quirks, and then immersing myself in them until they become as natural as my own verbal tics (like saying "basically..." or "essentially..." all the gorram time, ugh I hate that I do that so much but cannot stop myself).

This is one reason why I tend to play one of a stable of "familiar" characters. I've grown used to their personalities--I know them like one knows an old friend. Of course, it can be rewarding to be pushed into something new and unfamiliar as well, even if it means such characters have a tendency to show...indecision unbecoming of their otherwise-established personality traits

After that, it's a matter of putting just enough twists and inflections to make things feel textured without bogging down play. A lot of it can be done purely through word choice. As an example, the character I'm currently playing in a science-fantasy 4e game, Seth. He comes from a race that disappeared--a long, long time ago, but somehow he was spared that disappearance while in a healing stasis, only to be "recovered" by (corrupt) corporate xeno-archaeologists in the present day, and then subjected to experiments to determine how useful he might be (among other things). One such experiment psionically implanted knowledge of the current trade language in his head--and, since the nominal government of this region of space IS a mega-conglomerate (whose subsidiaries constantly compete with one another, sometimes even to the point of open combat!), that basically makes it the Common Tongue of this setting. But because this knowledge was implanted, rather than learned naturally, he has some odd or unusual inflections; he tends to speak in a mildly archaic fashion, and generally avoids using conjunctions. So, for example, if asked a yes/no question, he'll probably respond with "aye" or "nay" instead. It's not enough to make him difficult to understand at all--but it gives a subtle flavor of being old-fashioned, even medieval, which is perfectly in keeping with his backstory.

I've also worked to give his culture a light but consistent sketch. For example, all of the proper names I've used have originated in Hebrew (Biblical or Modern) or Arabic. Mechanically, he's a Dragonborn, but narratively, he is one of the Or'im (literally "Lights" in Hebrew); he considers his companions Epher'im (literally "dust" or "ashes," but the meaning he gives it is more like "my adopted people") and worships Bahamut (from the Biblical Hebrew BHMVT, a great beast shown to Job). And mechanically, his class is Paladin; narratively, precisely how his abilities work is left obscure. This ambiguity is intentional on both my part and the DM's, as he specifically wants to leave questions of gods and the divine open-ended. Magic--rather, "Arcanics"--is considered a branch of science. Whether any given culture's abilities or techniques are "divine," or in truth some application of esoteric and obscure technology is thus a difficult or even impossible question to answer--my character certainly believes that Bahamut is a god (perhaps even the, i.e. monotheistic, god), but whether that is fact or not is open-ended.

Attention to these things, the cultural factors, the personal beliefs, the bearing and demeanor of a character, is the heart of roleplaying in my opinion. It is how a character goes from being simply a collection of data into being a role one plays extemporaneously.

 

[robus]

This post by the Angry GM was a revelation for me on running exciting combat rounds and builds on what iserith described: http://theangrygm.com/manage-combat-like-a-dolphin/ (he's got an certain style, but there's great advice on his site)

 

[Flamestrike]

This post by the Angry GM was a revelation for me on running exciting combat rounds and builds on what iserith described: http://theangrygm.com/manage-combat-like-a-dolphin/ (he's got an certain style, but there's great advice on his site)

That guy reminds me of me. He generally has some great advice.

Im shocked that many tables dont limit player turns. You get a few seconds and 1 further prompt by the DM to declare an action at my table, otherwise you take the dodge action and your turn ends.

Do that once or twice and you'll never have to do it again, and suddenly everyone is much more attentive.

 

[iserith]

That guy reminds me of me. He generally has some great advice.

Im shocked that many tables dont limit player turns. You get a few seconds and 1 further prompt by the DM to declare an action at my table, otherwise you take the dodge action and your turn ends.

Do that once or twice and you'll never have to do it again, and suddenly everyone is much more attentive.

I take another tact and say this to the players as part of my page-setting discussion: "When it's your turn in the spotlight, act immediately or ask for advice which you must take (as long as it's reasonable even if not perfect). When it's not your turn, think of a Plan A and a Plan B, the latter of which is in case something change before your turn that affects Plan A. Your turn is for acting, not for thinking about what to do or asking questions (see 3 above). If everyone adheres to this, the game is more fast-paced, more engaging, and your turn will come around quicker."

 

[pemerton]

For me, roleplaying is mostly about action declaration. (Which I think is fairly close to [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] upthread.)

All the stuff that [MENTION=6790260]EzekielRaiden[/MENTION] said - about personality, values etc - I tend to feel either manifests itself in action delcaration, or else is mostly just some colour on the side.

 

[Sunseeker]

Typically, I don't roleplay combat. Bite bite swing swing, whatever. When I'm DM I'll roleplay the NPC during combat, but that's only if it's an NPC that matters and combat is the only place you'll encounter him.

Typically when roleplaying in a situation where checks are required I will roll first on whatever I decided I'm going to do, and then describe how well my action went after that.

 

[iserith]

Hi Wiskeim,

I just wanted to say that I really appreciate how you've framed your question about roleplay around combat. This highlights the fact that roleplay is simply making your character's decisions for them and that decisions made in combat are as much a part of roleplay as what you decide to say to the duke. If you are looking at the situation the DM has presented and deciding on a course of action that seems good to you, then you are doing it right.

For me, roleplaying is mostly about action declaration. (Which I think is fairly close to @Hriston upthread.)

All the stuff that @EzekielRaiden said - about personality, values etc - I tend to feel either manifests itself in action delcaration, or else is mostly just some colour on the side.

Right, roleplaying is just making decisions about how your character thinks and acts, which necessarily includes combat. How you communicate those decisions (e.g. acting, flowery description, purely "gamespeak," etc.) is a separate issue.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

For me, roleplaying is mostly about action declaration. (Which I think is fairly close to @Hriston upthread.)

All the stuff that @EzekielRaiden said - about personality, values etc - I tend to feel either manifests itself in action delcaration, or else is mostly just some colour on the side.

Well, before I say anything more: roleplaying is perhaps one of the most personal activities there is, so I fully expect everyone to do it differently. In a room with 10 roleplayers, you'll get 12 opinions about how to roleplay

But for me, at least, there's this feedback loop between the things you describe. Your values don't meaningfully exist if you don't, y'know, value them--and we demonstrate our values in our actions. (It is much like the idea of faith and works in Christianity: salvation is by faith alone, but you can't really call it faith if it doesn't alter your behavior accordingly.) But at the same time, actions cannot occur in a vacuum--we need a reason, a motive, a purpose for action, otherwise *nothing* happens. It becomes a chicken-and-the-egg problem: which comes first, the action that demonstrates your values, or the values that motivate your action?

I love writing up backstories and quirks and little foibles of my characters, they're the texture that brings mere information to life. I can decide on what "starting values" (hah, punny) a character has before it ever sees the light of play. Then, the character's actions and experiences can be informed by those starting values. But, after play experience occurs, the character now has become MORE than just what they started as. Those experiences must thus be factored into future choices, creating a new values-point to start from. When I iterate, endlessly, on this process, I get the organic growth of a character over time. But without that firm starting ground, SOME kind of anchor or jumping-off point, it's difficult or even impossible for me to "get the ball rolling" as it were.

The problem of the "truly blank slate" is well-addressed by Planescape: Torment. The Nameless One starts out True Neutral because he has neither personality nor history. He is the ultimate tabula rasa, onto which we, the players, project *our* values, so as to determine his actions. Without that projection, there would be no values to feel, and you're left with a very strange situation, a character who must make choices without any context--which means seemingly minor details of situation and circumstance make worlds of difference in outcome (hence why TNO has led so many vastly different lives).

Then the inflectional bits--stuff like the particular word choice or a character's accent or something--are mostly just window-dressing. It presents the character as a consistent and believable entity different from me. They also serve to help "keep me in character" so to speak; I can more easily distinguish *my* words from my *character's* words when I intentionally affect a different voice for the latter.

 

[n00b f00]

You may have used the wrong term, but I'm fairly descriptive when I play. I'll usually either describe what happened after the roll. Or the player or I will say what they're planning to do before the roll and describe the result after seeing the roll.

 

[pemerton]

Well, before I say anything more: roleplaying is perhaps one of the most personal activities there is, so I fully expect everyone to do it differently. In a room with 10 roleplayers, you'll get 12 opinions about how to roleplay

It's not as if I have a secret agenda here - there's an approach to "roleplaying" that I really don't enjoy, but that I think has enjoyed a wide degree of mainstream endorsement and promotion within the hobby. Within the context of D&D, I regard AD&D 2nd ed as the high watermark for that endorsement and promotion.

On this approach to "roleplaying", character action declaration is largely irrelevant (except perhaps in combat), because the resolution mechanics are so weak that most outcomes are determined by GM stipulation. And the dynamics of the narrative - what event follows what, leading from a start (perhaps a meeting in a tavern, or all the PCs walking down the street and stumbling upon an assault upon a stranger) to an end (the princess is rescued, the town is saved, or whatever) - are often largely settled in advance by the GM's adventure prep. What the players provide is simply the characterisation and colour of their PCs.

You can see this approach reflected in the AD&D 2nd ed PHB, where we get the example of Rath, who can be an excellent PC to play because the player provides colour and characterisation even though his stats are so low that - by the rules of AD&D as published - the player has relatively little chance of actually impacting the fiction via action declaration. (There is an almost contradictory tone to the whole discussion of PC building in this book, as - for instance - we are told that stats don't matter while also being told that a character with 18/00 STR who can therefore press slightly more than the then-current world record is "heroic".)

there's this feedback loop between the things you describe. Your values don't meaningfully exist if you don't, y'know, value them--and we demonstrate our values in our actions.

I think action declaration is key.

But whether or not action declaration demonstrates values will depend upon the framework within which the GM is (i) setting the scene for action declarations, and (ii) adjudicating them.

In Moldvay Basic, for instance, of similar Gygaxian dungeon-crawlilng, action declaration isn't about values at all. The game starts from the premise that what the PCs value is exploring dungeons and extracting loot. (There is scope for a superficial story overlay - "We're also in the dungeon to rescue the prisoners" - but it's obviously pretty superficial. The real motivation is collecting gold for XP while not getting killed in the (hyper-dangerous at low levels) combat.)

In this sort of game, then, "playing your role" is about using the resources the game permits you to use, given the character you are playing (eg you are playing a fighter, not a MU, and so your role permits you to use physical prowess rather than magic and (perhaps) learning to overcome the challenges of the game). Your "role" - dictated, as Gygax tells us in his PHB, primarily by choice of class - is about a suite of player resources that have in-fiction as well as at-the-table meaning. And playing that role is using those resources, which requires in-fiction as well as at-the-table moves.

There are other systems and GMing approaches which do permit action declaration to display values or commitments. Some of them were discussed in the recent "fail forward" thread.