Learning from GMs at GenCon - Respond to Roleplaying

[Umbran]

This is not very helpful. When you are telling someone, "You are not role-playing," by what measure is he or she not "playing the role"? How is it that you are in a better position to say how "this person would act"?

Well, I personally try to avoid the phrase, "You are not role-playing," in part because of what you note right here. But also because I find it to not be a useful piece of constructive criticism.

But, unless you are playing a Vulcan tactical genius, if I ask you why your character did a thing, and you always point to the rules and note how it was the most effective choice, then you're probably not playing the role, you're playing the rules.

Ultimately, the question isn't whether or not what you are doing is role-playing, but how you might make your role-playing better.

There are very basic questions as to what you mean by "the role" and "this person".

There's a reason why we refer to our units in RPGs as "characters" - role-playing is a lot like acting, or writing fiction. In those realms, there's also basic question about what role is being played, and who the characters are. A large point of the exercise is to explore those questions. That doesn't mean we can't talk about methods to improve acting or writing.

The "theatrical" interpretation seems to be the prevalent one here.

Yep. Largely, I think, because the game is a group activity, and theatrics are the basic way to communicate your playing of your role to other people, such that they can interact with it.

 

[Umbran]

Is saying that one is "using the ancient five-knuckle technique passed down to me through 100 generations" more -- or better -- role-playing than a serious fighter's short and sharp response? Does it depend on whether "precedes attacks with recitation of cliches" is part of the imaginary personality being modeled?

Yes, I think it does depend a lot on the imaginary personality being played. Jackie Chan and Clint Eastwood have markedly different styles, but they both communicate to others a lot of information about the characters they play.

Jackie Chan might well use the ancient five-knuckle technique passed down to him through 100 generations. Clint wouldn't, but except as specific contrast to other things going on, he'd not "just punch" his target either. Clint might instead give a short, sharp, brutal jab. The details of the quality of action can speak to the person making the action.

Not that you have to do this every time you roll a to-hit to be a good role-player - such description is one tool in a whole arsenal, and any tool can be over-used.

 

[Adso]

This. In an ideal world this would end this (rather pointless) discussion, right?

It did for me.

Really, you can have a bunch of conversations about what roleplaying actually is. I know they can be fun intellectual exercise. You can try to corral it with definitions and use it as stepping stool for obscure arguments, but typically roleplaying is one of those things that people know instantly when they see it. They have a harder time defining it. It’s like art, culture, games, or even music.

That, and I don't think I would ever tell anyone, "hey you know that's not actually roleplaying." That's just being rude. And it goes against the first rule of games -- make fun! And the second rule of the RPGA (at least back in my days running it) -- don't be a dick.

 

[Adso]

Sorry, double post.

 

[Adso]

Hey Stephen. Thanks for jumping in and elaborating.

As I mentioned above, I agree with your main point: the group does matter. A lot. Often, the voice of the group can shout down the voice of the game.

It's just that one idea, viz. system can only affect roleplaying in very limited ways, that I disagree with. To me, the "system does not much affect roleplaying" idea and the "group is more important than system" idea are not identical. The group can have a larger effect than the system in a significant number of cases, and still that does not mean that system's effect on roleplay is very limited.

I think we can just disagree here. I do think system affects roleplaying, in some of the ways you point out, but that your group will always have a greater effect. No system makes you roleplay, and most are too busy trying to explain to you how the game works to engage you on that level. Roleplaying groups engage you on that level. If you want to have roleplaying in your group, promote roleplaying in your group. Don't expect to find the magic system that will do it for you.

I think that's my point.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

Is saying that one is "using the ancient five-knuckle technique passed down to me through 100 generations" more -- or better -- role-playing than a serious fighter's short and sharp response?

In a game called Wushu, yes. It'd be dog-doo awful in a game about Spartan warriors or Angry Space Marines. But even given your example, I'd prefer to hear a player say, "I parry his attack and jab him in the chin with my sword-pommel," rather than "I attack. I got a 23."

On the topic of responding correctly and encouraging roleplay:

One trick I've learned from teaching kids is that praise is infinitely more effective than disapproval for correcting behavior. When Daisuke is being snotty, and Aika and Minori are both being good, I give Aika and Minori a high-five. This is why I nearly always include some sort of instant praise mechanic in my games, and it's nearly always a physical token that I hand the player the very moment that player does something awesome.

 

[Dausuul]

That's definitely what I was talking about in my article. It's playing your character's personality, quirks, and goals not the act of driving their skills and powers in the tactical game. You can still roleplay while you are driving their skills and powers, but some people don’t.

Everyone roleplays, some just don’t do it when the dice are flying. They are too into the game play.

You're setting up a false dichotomy here--assuming that any given player/DM will either always roleplay when the dice are flying, or never do so, and that this behavior is driven entirely by personal preference.

This is not true at all. I like to roleplay in combat. But if I'm keeping track of a gang of bad guys with four different ongoing conditions on them, and recharge abilities, and bonuses that come into play when attacking a bloodied target--I'm not gonna be doing much roleplaying, and the roleplaying I do will consist of brusque, knee-jerk responses rather than witty banter. I have too many numbers to juggle to think much about dialogue.

I don't want a magic system to roleplay for me. That would defeat the point! But some systems are a whole lot better than others at getting out of the way of my roleplaying.

 

[Adso]

You're setting up a false dichotomy here--assuming that any given player/DM will either always roleplay when the dice are flying, or never do so, and that this behavior is driven entirely by personal preference.

This is not true at all. I like to roleplay in combat. But if I'm keeping track of a gang of bad guys with four different ongoing conditions on them, and recharge abilities, and bonuses that come into play when attacking a bloodied target--I'm not gonna be doing much roleplaying, and the roleplaying I do will consist of brusque, knee-jerk responses rather than witty banter. I have too many numbers to juggle to think much about dialogue.

I don't want a magic system to roleplay for me. That would defeat the point! But some systems are a whole lot better than others at getting out of the way of my roleplaying.

I have no desire on setting up a dichotomy, false or otherwise. I'm just making observations.

Yes, when you are comfortable with a system, and the group around you is comfortable with a system, you will tend to roleplay more (if you are so inclined). Some systems make some people more comfortable than others. Lite rules systems are appreciated by roleplayers because they don't have to spend the brainpower thinking about the rules (as you pointed out). But even with a rules lite system, you will not roleplay if the group is not a roleplaying group. With a rules heavy system, you can have a lot of roleplaying if the group is comfortable with the systems quirks and jargon and actively promotes roleplaying.

I've seen this many times, and that's my point. I think your group affects roleplaying more than system does. It doesn’t' mean that system can't affect roleplaying, and it also does not mean group always promotes roleplaying. It’s a tendency, a trend, and phenomena. It’s by no means a dichotomy.

 

[Umbran]

You're setting up a false dichotomy here--assuming that any given player/DM will either always roleplay when the dice are flying, or never do so, and that this behavior is driven entirely by personal preference.

No, he's not. He says there are some people who don't (ever, or rarely) role play when the dice are flying. He doesn't speak to what the others do (or don't do, or when they do or don't do whatever they are doing or not doing).

That all the others must always roleplay when the dice are flying seems to be your inference, and doesn't seem to be directly supported by his text.

 

[Nadaka]

I see some people blaming the system, instead of the player.

In 1e D&D, you had almost no social mechanic in the game (except for the otherwise useless charisma score), so you "had" to role-play social encounters. One could just as easily argue the opposite, that because there is no mechanic, it is less likely to arise in the course of the game and to feel out of place when it does.

In 3e, and to a lesser degree 2e and 4e, you had social mechanics that represented a characters skill in social circumstances. Some players would end up using this as a crutch to resolve social encounters as quickly as possible. But others could just as easily use this mechanical as an incentive to play the the role that has been more thoroughly defined.