What exactly is "Roleplaying", Do We Think?

[pemerton]

There is a roll playing element to the hobby, but that part of it, imo, is different from the role playing aspect.

I think that this may be something on which we have different views. I see engaging the mechanics (which may include rolling the dice) as one element in roleplaying.

 

[pemerton]

A lot of times the charge of "that's not roleplaying" or "maybe you should get a new label for your game, because it's no longer a roleplaying game" or whatever are more about scoring points in an imaginary "playstyle wars" kind of way rather than indicating true confusion.

I definitely agree with this!

there's a lot of ground between "Oscar worthy performance" and "caring enough about some consistency to not throw completely out of character actions in just because they're more convenient."

My experience - limited as it is - has been that the jettisoning of character for convenience is often triggered by a context - either a mechanical context, or a broader playstyle context - in which players get punished in various ways (eg weaker/less viable PCs, less satisfaction from the game, etc) for playing their character as a character.

One time-honoured example is the GM who punishes mercy by having captives turn upon the PCs as soon as they get a chance.

The converse that I have experienced is this: make sure your players are confident that you won't hose them for their choices - remove the pressure for convenience/expedience - and you'll see a wider range of characters and character motivations emerge and be pursued in play.

 

[Mark CMG]

I think that this leaves out system -

Yup, the question only asks about the roleplaying side of the roleplaying game. The game part is the system in a roleplaying game.

- or, alternatively, it assumes a "drama"/"free roleplaying" approach to resolution.

Precisely the opposite. The questions asks only about roleplaying and the answer assumes no specific system. The answer does assume that I was defining roleplaying as it manifests in a roleplaying game but it doesn't assume more, doesn't assume anything about the game side of the equation.

I mean, suppose there is a big battle going on, and PC X suddenly confronts his/her rival warlord. "Drop your weapon and surrender" says X. If the GM (or whichever other participant has responsibility for determining what the rival does in the fiction) calls for a die roll (say, an Intimidate skill check) is this part of the roleplaying process, or orthogonal to it, or antithetical to it?

It's the game part of the roleplaying game you are describing.

 

[Mark CMG]

A lot of times the charge of "that's not roleplaying" or "maybe you should get a new label for your game, because it's no longer a roleplaying game" or whatever are more about scoring points in an imaginary "playstyle wars" kind of way rather than indicating true confusion.

Since you're practically quoting me (though out of context) from the quoted section Balesir brough to this thread from the other, it seems I'll have to accept the crude baiting attempt. The bottomline of what I said above isn't difficult to understand and has nothing to do with your so-called "style" wars. It's simply a mater of performing an activity within a game or not. If you remove most or all of the roleplaying from a roleplaying game it just really makes no sense to call it a roleplaying game any longer, whether this is done by design and sold as such or if it is a construct of the manner in which some invidiuals play a game at their own table. There's nothing wrong with playing other games.

It's a common failing amongst people that they pretend not to understand stuff that they don't like or don't agree with, when they actually understand it just fine--they just don't like it or don't agree with it.

I get that kind of playing dumb from my teenagers all the time when they're in a punk mood and just want to be contrary and ornery. But I get it plenty from other folks who are older too, and I've caught myself doing it plenty of times myself.

The irony seems a bit forced.

 

[Balesir]

I think that this leaves out system - or, alternatively, it assumes a "drama"/"free roleplaying" approach to resolution.

I mean, suppose there is a big battle going on, and PC X suddenly confronts his/her rival warlord. "Drop your weapon and surrender" says X. If the GM (or whichever other participant has responsibility for determining what the rival does in the fiction) calls for a die roll (say, an Intimidate skill check) is this part of the roleplaying process, or orthogonal to it, or antithetical to it?

I agree with chaochou that this is part of roleplaying - the mediation of fiction by system. When the system involves dice rather than free narration it doesn't become less roleplaying.

I think I'm with [MENTION=10479]Mark CMG[/MENTION] on this - I don't see "roleplaying" as including any element of "mechanical system", either. I ask myself the question "could I roleplay alone" and I believe I can; mechanical system is only required when dealing with others, and I don't believe it is required to roleplay.

That said, however, I think [MENTION=10479]Mark CMG[/MENTION] broadens the definition in other ways that I also don't necessarily agree with - into acting and in-character dialogue, for example. I agree that roleplaying may be going on at the same time as in-character dialogue and acting - but I don't think roleplaying requires (or, therefore, includes) those things.

Perhaps, to use the "D&DNext" paradigm, I am trying to define a "Core" essence of roleplaying, to which other "modules" can be optionally added to get the style of "roleplaying" you want?

I got the impression from the OP that the question is " Do you think X, as a resolution method, is role playing?" My answer is yes? N
o wait, it's blue.

No, sorry if I was unclear. The question is (intended to have) nothing to do with resolutions. The question is simply "this "roleplaying" word gets used a lot - what do you mean when you use it? Discuss."

i dont see that at all. Mark is answering the question what is roleplaying, not what is a roleplaying game. He is addressing what people mean when they talk about roleplaying in the context of an rpg. You are describing the game element. So i dont see reaction rolls or social skills breaking down his definition or the term. These are tools used to help account for a characters skill level (though personally I think social skills can interfere with roleplaying when used in certain ways). There is a roll playing element to the hobby, but that part of it, imo, is different from the role playing aspect.

I agree that the roleplaying component stands separate from the system; where I have problems is how this matches with "roleplaying" having or creating demands of the form of the system.

By my definition of roleplaying, the only 'system' element that might impact roleplaying is one that took control of a character's decisions about intent. By including acting and in-character dialogue as part of "roleplaying", it seems to me that you add the possibility that systems intended to adjudicate character execution of the decisions made - a normal and expected function of systems - will interfere with "roleplaying". I think this is where the confusions in the other thread arise concerning whether or not "social mechanics" interfere with "roleplaying". Thus, differences in what we mean by "roleplaying" cause unnecessary contention; that was one reason for the creation of this thread.

I guess I wonder who the arbiter is.

Now I'm not saying that there can be no stanards in the absence of an arbiter. I mean, there are no appeals from the Supreme Court, but that doesn't mean that it is not bound by law. But there is a huge administrative and cultural apparatus around the Supreme Court that helps hold it to the relevant standards - and even then, disagreements are common.

In the case of an RPG, where the stakes are so much lower, even if I assume there are standards (and I'm not sure this is true - where are they found?) what is the corresponding apparatus?

I think there are standards (although see * below) and a corresponding apparatus. The standards are those of the gestalt formed by the aesthetic standards of those playing, the apparatus is the social approval or disapproval of those playing. I think you even see the sort of problems that arise when people move to different jurisdictions of law when players move between tables, and I think those issues are alleviated, just as those in international law are, via increased commerce and communication between the wider community of roleplayers.

*: I think the "standard" might better be termed an "ideal". No-one really expects you to achieve the ideal - and, frankly, someone who stuck rigidly to it would be a real pain in the tush - but nevertheless just walking away from it is not acceptable, either. Rather, we expect each other to orbit the ideal at some more-or-less acceptable distance...

 

[Bedrockgames]

I agree that the roleplaying component stands separate from the system; where I have problems is how this matches with "roleplaying" having or creating demands of the form of the system.

By my definition of roleplaying, the only 'system' element that might impact roleplaying is one that took control of a character's decisions about intent. By including acting and in-character dialogue as part of "roleplaying", it seems to me that you add the possibility that systems intended to adjudicate character execution of the decisions made - a normal and expected function of systems - will interfere with "roleplaying". I think this is where the confusions in the other thread arise concerning whether or not "social mechanics" interfere with "roleplaying". Thus, differences in what we mean by "roleplaying" cause unnecessary contention; that was one reason for the creation of this thread.

...

Except as I explained to another poster, you are defining a role playing game, not role playing IMO (unless I misunderstand your post which is very possible this early in the day). Social Skills are game elements. Rolling a diplomacy roll has traditionally not been regarded as a role play element but a game element---please see my elaboration below however on this point. This distinction used to be our operating assumption in the 80s and 90s (thus the wealth of articles titled Role playing versus Roll playing). This distinction is handy in my opinion. Also, as others have pointed out, the term itself is naturally a flexible one that depends largely on context (I think Hobo made this point and it is a very good one IMO). So attempts to narrow its meaning, I think are counter productive.

Generally I don't find it difficult to understand how someone means to use the word, and I don't really get hung up on folks using it differently than I normally might. It can in fact refer to the overall activity of a role playing game, including rolling dice. But when people talk about thing like "role playing is important to me, I want to see role play at the table" they are usually being much more specific and talking about stuff like in character dialogue and approaching the game from a first person perspective. It is a bit like "fugetaboutit" in that it is a versatile and useful word that conveys a lot with very little effort, provided you know how to pay attention to context.

So yes there are differences with how the word is used, and this can sometimes lead to confusion. But I think redifining a broadly used word in a narrow way, is not going to help. If anything it will just add further jargon to the hobby, and fragment communication (because not everyone will adopt the new use or any new terms that arise out of it).

 

[Mark CMG]

That said, however, I think [MENTION=10479]Mark CMG[/MENTION] broadens the definition in other ways that I also don't necessarily agree with - into acting and in-character dialogue, for example. I agree that roleplaying may be going on at the same time as in-character dialogue and acting - but I don't think roleplaying requires (or, therefore, includes) those things.

I don't think acting or dialogue is required either, though I think it adds to the experience. All you really need is first person narrative. Once you get into third person narrative, though, you remove yourself from the character and become a non-character storyteller (which is one, and only one, of the GMs dutes).

 

[Mallus]

OK, but I think you've deferred all the challenging bits via the phrase "in a roleplaying game".

Interesting. Can you elaborate?

(all I was trying for with that clause was context -- to separate what goes in gaming from theater, training exercises, psychotherapy, and/or sociology experiments. Oh, and from dressing up like a nurse and a police officer with your partner on a Saturday night after two bottles of wine...).

 

[Desdichado]

Since you're practically quoting me (though out of context) from the quoted section Balesir brough to this thread from the other, it seems I'll have to accept the crude baiting attempt. The bottomline of what I said above isn't difficult to understand and has nothing to do with your so-called "style" wars. It's simply a mater of performing an activity within a game or not. If you remove most or all of the roleplaying from a roleplaying game it just really makes no sense to call it a roleplaying game any longer, whether this is done by design and sold as such or if it is a construct of the manner in which some invidiuals play a game at their own table. There's nothing wrong with playing other games.

Don't flatter yourself, Mark. I don't follow your posts particularly closely to know what you think about this issue, and I didn't read the thread that this was forked from. And I only skimmed the first post anyway, because my point wasn't to engage in his attempt to define roleplaying specifically, but rather to say that I don't think it's necessary to do so. I'm speaking generically about a charge that I've seen levelled at folks in the "Playstyle Wars" over and over again from many people, and I rarely pay attention to who's said what exactly.

My only point is that defining roleplaying isn't, IMO, necessary. We all know what is meant by the term. Sometimes we just pretend not to get it.

And not to pile on--at least not intentionally, although it's certainly going to look like that's what I'm doing; again, I'm speaking about the predictable and very often repeated course these types of conversations tend to follow, not this one in particular--but the follow-up to "that's not a roleplaying game" of "it's great to play other types of games. Just don't call them roleplaying games" isn't affirmative, even though it pretends to be. It's a very, very thinly veiled accusation of "you're doing it wrong". Trying to put roleplaying into an increasingly narrow definitional box and exclude other activities by making up labels for them (like my pet peeve fake label "storygames") isn't about clarity through definitional preciseness. It's usually about passive aggressive playstyle warring. And even when it's not, it's going to come across that way anyway, because nobody is going to want to be told that they're excluded from the hobby and that the very label of teh hobby itself doesn't apply to them because "they're doing it wrong." Go get your own label; you're in a completely different hobby. Etc. Even if that kind of thing is well-intentioned, it's at best a foolish endeavor. At worst it's--well, it's not actually well-intentioned at all, at worst.

 

[Mark CMG]

My only point is that defining roleplaying isn't, IMO, necessary.

Yet you felt compelled to open this thread, go far beyond merely stating this point, and somehow also felt you needed to define anyone who disagrees as disingenuous and sundry other epithets. Why did you think anything you've posted could be mistaken for flattery?