What exactly is "Roleplaying", Do We Think?

[JoesephBear]

No wait.

Listen you guys.

No...dude.

You guys.

I think I figured it out.

A roleplaying game...

is a game...

where you play a role!

*boosh*

 

[Mallus]

To me role-playing is playing according to the definition of the character.

What if that definition changes/evolves over the course of the campaign?

(consistency is the hobgoblin of little PCs)

 

[Mallus]

What do others here think?

Role-playing is the act of playing a character in a role-playing game.

Nothing more, nothing less.

This can mean treating the character as a game piece in a board(less) game, as a character being portrayed by an actor, as a character being written by an author, as an author-insert character being written by an author, and even a whole other person, complete with a (made-up) point-of-view and (makeshift) interior life.

In my experience, role-playing usually means all of the above, with the emphasis between game-piece/fictional character/me/a blend of all three shifting frequently each session.

 

[Janx]

What if that definition changes/evolves over the course of the campaign?

(consistency is the hobgoblin of little PCs)

I cover that in 2 different statements in my last post.

", barring character growth in the game."

", perhaps adjusting as life events happen"

I swear, half of all internet disagreements are because readers don't see conditional clauses in the writers statements. A good habit for reading statements is to EXPECT conditional clauses and to assume there are some exceptions if the writer didn't list any.

I learned long ago in writing class that the difference between the protagonist and the supporting characters is that the protagonist grows and changes and is not the same person by the end of the book.

So I expect a PC to change and evolve over a campaign. Within that, you should see a consistent protrayal with changes in behavior being mapped to key events that alter the outlook of the PC.

 

[Janx]

This can mean treating the character as a game piece in a board(less) game, as a character being portrayed by an actor, as a character being written by an author, as an author-insert character being written by an author, and even a whole other person, complete with a (made-up) point-of-view and (makeshift) interior life.

In my experience, role-playing usually means all of the above, with the emphasis between game-piece/fictional character/me/a blend of all three shifting frequently each session.

this is probably true. Especially that the emphasis.

I suspect, that players like myself who emphasize portrayal of character as being "roleplaying" would consider that somebody who just moves their piece around as not actually roleplaying.

if nothing else, it is the difference between playing a role in the party (I am the fighter, you are the thief) and playing the role of a character ( I am Uthgar of the LongSpear).

generically speaking, everybody's playing a role in the party. What muddies the water is using the same term for that as for portaying a specific character.

So, either we make a new word, or acknowledge that there's 2 different uses for the term roleplaying.

 

[Umbran]

It's not even about the GM. The PLAYER should be asking, what is this PC like, and then playing that PC according to the answer.

You realize that upthread, you gave less indication that you gave a whit what the player thought of his character's change of behavior? You just said that if he described one thing, and then did another, he wasn't role-playing.

A PC should not run 10 levels being Lawful Good and the next day, start commiting CE crimes.

I've seen more than one paladin have the fantasy equivalent of a psychotic break. Being a paladin is pretty stressful stuff.

If the player can justify it, whatever they said before, it's role-playing. And, to be honest, I'm okay with pretty thin justifications.

That isn't who the character is, unless the PC was really evil all along or has had a character changing event occur that makes him embrace evil.

That isn't who the character was, yesterday. I don't have ownership of another player's character. I don't get to say who that character is.

 

[Janx]

You realize that upthread, you gave no indication that you gave a whit what the player thought of his character's change of behavior? You just said that if he described one thing, and then did another, he wasn't role-playing.

I'm not sure where the confusion or contradiction is. If he describes it to the GM or keeps it in his head, a person who Role Plays has an idea of how that person is, and they consistently portray that person.

To an observer, it should be obvious that this is the same person from scene to scene.

I've seen more than one paladin have the fantasy equivalent of a psychotic break. Being a paladin is pretty stressful stuff.

If the player can justify it, whatever they said before, it's role-playing. And, to be honest, I'm okay with pretty thin justifications.

I can't stop you from accepting poor acting as roleplay. Here's the litmus test: If you were reading the adventure as a book or TV show, would you really accept crappy acting as good writing?

Characters evolving is generally accepted. Characters acting out of character for no good reason is consider crap writing in most forms of fiction.

That isn't who the character was, yesterday. I don't have ownership of another player's character. I don't get to say who that character is.

According to the old alignment rules, as GM, you do. Ye olde timey XP penalty for changing alignments is such a rule. Acting out of character is a judgeable and penalizable thing.

There should always be room for player/GM discussion about "I don't like the way I defined my character and want to change it." That's no different than "this feat I took was totally stupid, I'd like to change it."
But that's different than crappy acting.

To me, the very point of RolePlaying is to say "I'm playing Dudley DoRight as a Paladin" and to consistently play that way or evolve him, such that your PC is voluntarily constrained from certain options like being evil, backstabbing your friends, consorting with demons. To wake up the next day and do those evil things because it is convenient and a "smart move" is out of character and is not RolePlaying.

It's no different than your girlfriend putting on the naughty nurse outfit and then spending all night talking about work (once again, assuming she is not a porn star) while she engages in boring chores and nothing naughty occurs during the roleplaying session.

It should also be noted, that despite my strong opinion, unlike social skills, there is no game mechanic to enforce it. At best, there WAS the alignment change penalty (which its design intent is most likely as I described it upthread).

So, I cannot mechanically enforce roleplaying nor measure how well you are doing it. Or even fairly discern if your PC's behavior change is "in character" compared to Bob's thinly veiled excuse to turn evil so he can jack with Jane for getting his horse killed last week.

 

[Mallus]

I cover that in 2 different statements in my last post.

", barring character growth in the game."

", perhaps adjusting as life events happen"

I swear, half of all internet disagreements are because readers don't see conditional clauses in the writers statements.

I didn't mean to come off like I didn't finish reading your post -- let me elaborate a bit.

Character growth carries a lot of implications, related to how the term is used in lit/film/drama criticism, which don't apply to RPG PCs.

The defining characteristic in RPG play is, well, play. Messing around in the fictional environment. A PC defined as a coward may suddenly want to pull that big shiny red lever in the dungeon wall, because at that moment, the players wants to "play" with it. See what happens. For whatever reason, and regardless of how the PC was previously characterized.

(in my experience, this occurs a lot during RPG play)

Characterization becomes secondary to pure play, the sheer pleasure of doing shi stuff in a fictional space.

I'm all for good characterization, for RPGs as being a kind of living, collaborative fiction, but I realize they're also games, and the more chaotic imperatives of play --in the Grand Theft Auto sandbox sense-- are going to to assert themselves.

Therefore any definition of role-playing pegged to consistency is at odds with the principle allure of the game.

 

[Loonook]

I do believe a certain amount of consistency should be able to be exhibited... However, the lives we depict are just as malleable and fragile as the real thing.

A couple of examples off the top of generally accepted characters who change due to outside indicators and against type would be so unbelievably numerous. How many paladins wipe out the whole Goblin camp? They would never do so within a normal racial camp... But those women, children, and old folk are MONSTERS.

We make cardinal assumptions on how characters must act within type and only be changed by major events. Though I don't believe this is the original intent.

On the original point roleplaying is the action between the dice. It is taking a narrative and shaping it within the structure and stricture of a given system. I should play as close to type as I may... But when dice may adjudicate I should be just as tied to them as anyone and vice versa. A warrior cannot swing a sword and describe its arc against a live target to determine a hit... But an ariztocrat may determine negotiations while the numbers say he is a complete lout? Descriptives should give bonuses to anything... And they should be judged on a case-by-case basis with DM AND PARTY INPUT.

Sorry... Left my gas can here...

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[Janx]

I didn't mean to come off like I didn't finish reading your post -- let me elaborate a bit.

It's ok, i know you're literate

Character growth carries a lot of implications, related to how the term is used in lit/film/drama criticism, which don't apply to RPG PCs.

The defining characteristic in RPG play is, well, play. Messing around in the fictional environment. A PC defined as a coward may suddenly want to pull that big shiny red lever in the dungeon wall, because at that moment, the players wants to "play" with it. See what happens. For whatever reason, and regardless of how the PC was previously characterized.

this is a good point. I try not to define my PC's traits as ones that interfere with gaming, but sometimes it happens. I once had a PC who was afraid of water and wouldn't you know it, at some point the party had to get on a boat to sail away from enemies.

However, like the case of the coward, I find a way to portray my character's trait AND fulfill the tactical objective. That may mean acting scared WHILE doing the activity he's scared of.

To me, part of the challenge is when you define the PC, those are voluntary constraints on the PC.

If I was playing Senator John McCain in a 24-ish scenario, it would be out of character for him to advocate the use of torture. He would argue with Jack Bauer to not torture the suspect. Howerver, as a player, i know that the Jack Bauer PC has a really high Interrogate skill and this does seem to be the only way to get the answer. So, I would roleplay the argument, but maneuver things so the other player can do his thing. I would try to be a bit more subtle than the stupid paladin goes to check on the horses while the party interogates the prisoner. But shows like 24 demonstrate how 2 characters can disagree and one side will get their way, but they will still be able to work together afterwards.