What exactly is "Roleplaying", Do We Think?

[Bedrockgames]

Right - it is a very different type of system, that is not really disputable (well, not reasonably!)

The thing is, though, that by calling it "roleplaying" because it is different from "crunch mechanical" systems, you go one step beyond what is necessary and thereby label any system that uses "crunch mechanical" methods "not roleplaying" (or, at least, "less roleplaying"). I think this is both inaccurate and a problem in terms of slighting other players.

I don't know what the terms should be, but I think what we are talking about is a different quality of "system" - one that suits some styles of play (sensory-picture immersive play as an obvious example) particularly well. The characteristics of the system type would be that it has player skill either directly (you bluff in character by bluffing your friends) or indirectly (you simulate a bluff by acting as you imagine a character would when bluffing, including one or two "tell-tales" if you either want your friends to twig to it or think they are a bit dim in the bluff-detection department and need some help - or if you need to bluff constantly just to play, so need to telegraph a bit more when the character is actually supposed to be bluffing...)

With very skilled players, I can see this producing a very fine, immersive session. Which is a fine thing - but not what every roleplayer requires or necessarily even wants.

I am not suggesting anything other this this style isn't role playing, but I do think it ia at the end of the roleplaying side of the spectrum. The reason I am using roll play versus role play is because those are a distinction and a set of terms people have used and understood for some time. We can nitpick over the breadth of the role play spectrum, but I think most people grasp the concept in the context I am using it ( and I have acknowledged there is a broader meaning to the term as well). To me creating new terms just muddiez the watersbeven more with jargon. You, me, pemerton and jerome might come to a clearer understanding, but then thebnew term actually creates a hurdle between us and the rest of the gaming community. Sort of like how you have a gulf between forge proponents and people who use the same language as them but to mean different things.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Right - it is a very different type of system, that is not really disputable (well, not reasonably!)

The .

On this point we just have to agree to disagree because i dont see it as a system in the rpg sense.

 

[Balesir]

Regarding bluff, i wasnt trying to reduce negotiation to a simple matter of the character making choice. The point is you weigh the buff from the point of view of the character. This is really getting more into the specific topic of 1st person dialogue, but this is somethign I dont consider a system in the game system sense. You do it enought and it becomes very intuitive. The purpose of course isn't to simulate reality but to feel like you are there. For me the greatest moments for me as a GM are when I am playing Strahd orn equally interesting NPC and you feel for a momemt like you are strahd. Not to the point of insanity, not so you literally cant distinguish between reality and the game world,but you are immersed in the way you might be with a book or movie, except the immersion is in the characters.

So if the pcs try to bluff Strahd, i am thinking in terms of what strahd values, what he wants, what he doesn't want, how well the player is making the case, how charismatic his character is, etc. It is a trade off though, because you give more weight to player performance. So it isn't as simulative of characters in that respect. But the experience is to me more fun than rolling diplomacy rolls and adding your modifiers.

Sure - and this sort of stuff absolutely is, in my mind, "roleplaying" the NPC. What do they want, what do they value? But what I'm saying is that a bluff attempt does not consiste only of the NPC making choices/decisions based on his or her likes and wants. There is also the degree to which the bluffer both perceives and succeeds in bringing forwards specific desires and values of that NPC and linking them, however irrationally, with the thing that the bluffer wants in the mind of the NPC. The player may succeed in doing just that with the GM, but that will then be the player's skill acting as a cipher for the character's skill. It's not just decisions being made, there - it's 'reading' of the other party in the conversation (and a player who has known the GM for years representing a character who has only just met Strahd, a vampire, is hardly a good representation, here) and using body language, tone, expression and so on to 'steer' the conversation in specific ways (again, assuming that a vampire might react to expressions, pheromones, body language and such like in the same way as a human GM will - a tenuous supposition, on the whole, but one that you might make for the sake of the game you want to play).

 

[Janx]

So if the pcs try to bluff Strahd, i am thinking in terms of what strahd values, what he wants, what he doesn't want, how well the player is making the case, how charismatic his character is, etc. It is a trade off though, because you give more weight to player performance. So it isn't as simulative of characters in that respect. But the experience is to me more fun than rolling diplomacy rolls and adding your modifiers.

Outside of the internet, anybody I've ever talked to who plays RPGs, would classify those type of players as "roleplayers".

It's a double-use of the word. Sure, we are all playing a role in a game categorized as Role Playing Game. But not all of us are "Role Playing" as in behaving a certain way because of the personality of your character, rather than the stats of our character.

So, when you ask me what's Role-Playing, I give you the definition of "behaving a certain way because of the personality of your character, rather than the stats of our character."

If you want to make Role Playing be something more broad, I would ask that you give me a decent word that means what I meant, so I can use that instead.

Acting was one such word. I think that has negative connotations, as in people who get into 1st person speech-only and have dreams of melodramtic thespianism. It's certainly something [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] alluded to.

I think "behaving a certain way because of the personality of our character, rather than the stats of your character" can also means saying that my PC is very protective of women and will rush to their defense if he sees them mistreated or disrespected. A player does not need to speak with a fake accent or speak everything in the first person as his character to follow this trait he has defined. All he has to do is consistently help women when he sees them being beaten, etc.

The player who defines that trait for his PC and follows it is doing something extra that another player who just moves his PC around the game space and does whatever is optimal is not doing.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Sure - and this sort of stuff absolutely is, in my mind, "roleplaying" the NPC. What do they want, what do they value? But what I'm saying is that a bluff attempt does not consiste only of the NPC making choices/decisions based on his or her likes and wants. There is also the degree to which the bluffer both perceives and succeeds in bringing forwards specific desires and values of that NPC and linking them, however irrationally, with the thing that the bluffer wants in the mind of the NPC. The player may succeed in doing just that with the GM, but that will then be the player's skill acting as a cipher for the character's skill. It's not just decisions being made, there - it's 'reading' of the other party in the conversation (and a player who has known the GM for years representing a character who has only just met Strahd, a vampire, is hardly a good representation, here) and using body language, tone, expression and so on to 'steer' the conversation in specific ways (again, assuming that a vampire might react to expressions, pheromones, body language and such like in the same way as a human GM will - a tenuous supposition, on the whole, but one that you might make for the sake of the game you want to play).

Like I said, a character simulator isnt the goal here, the goal is to tighten the space between player and character. But i will say, the player is still expected to play his characters prsonality and talents. If his character is socially inept, and he lands a bravo buff performance, i would weigh the fact that he is weak in that area or i may employ a skill roll. But it is a social game and in a role play heavy session like this the players own social skill is going to matter, just like a tactically minded pc may have an edge in combat. That doesn't bother me, because the trade off of leaning on social skills to balance out the players isn't worth it. It doesn't create the experience i want. Just like in my investigation adventures, i expect the players to put together the clues. There is certainly room to challenge the player directly because in a lot of ways this shortens the space between player and character.

I will add that the more you do this the more intuitive it becomes. Characterization still occurs, and all of my npcs are distinct personalities.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I am not suggesting anything other this this style isn't role playing, but I do think it ia at the end of the roleplaying side of the spectrum. The reason I am using roll play versus role play is because those are a distinction and a set of terms people have used and understood for some time.

Note that I also disagree with your statement here. There have been strong camps from the beginning that this narrower view is "roleplaying" and things outside of it are not. But people have been arguing with them for a long time, too. So I dispute that people have used and understood that for some time. Some people have. That's the problem!

(The discussion was already old and heated when I started, circa 1981.)

 

[Bedrockgames]

Note that I also disagree with your statement here. There have been strong camps from the beginning that this narrower view is "roleplaying" and things outside of it are not. But people have been arguing with them for a long time, too. So I dispute that people have used and understood that for some time. Some people have. That's the problem!

(The discussion was already old and heated when I started, circa 1981.)

But you agree that it denites two distinct approaches to the game (on a spectrum of course) and that these reflect real differences of style at the table, correct? I understand that this comes from an old argument (which is why I used the term, because I was in the opposing camp back in the day).

 

[Crazy Jerome]

But you agree that it denotes two distinct approaches to the game (on a spectrum of course) and that these reflect real differences of style at the table, correct? I understand that this comes from an old argument (which is why I used the term, because I was in the opposing camp back in the day).

I'd agree that some people in the those aforementioned camps might see it as two distinct approaches. I never have, and certainly none of the 150-odd people that I have run games for long enough to get to know their opinions on the subject have. To us, it has looked a lot like: "Fords are the real trucks!" "No, Chevys are the real automobiles!" "I like Toyota!" "Import freak!" And then we just shake our heads and think, "the similarities sure look more important than the differences when you are trying to get to work on time--and some of us grew up driving tractors, ton trucks, bull dozers, etc."

Sure there are distinctions. There is a distinction between getting $950 as a gift, versus getting $1000 for a gift, too.

 

[Balesir]

I am not suggesting anything other this this style isn't role playing, but I do think it ia at the end of the roleplaying side of the spectrum.

You may be right that we just have to agree to disagree, but I don't see this as any sort of "spectrum"; I see both 'diceless' play (in the wider sense of no randomisers or mechanical game system) and 'diceful' play as essentially the same thing: roleplaying going on (ideally) internally to the players closely coupled with a system for resolution.

Do the different approaches encourage or "support" different styles of play? Sure they do! But both are structured very similarly in having roleplaying going on internally to each player and resolution systems in operation for changes to the imagined "space" that is shared by all the players.

The reason I am using roll play versus role play is because those are a distinction and a set of terms people have used and understood for some time. We can nitpick over the breadth of the role play spectrum, but I think most people grasp the concept in the context I am using it ( and I have acknowledged there is a broader meaning to the term as well). To me creating new terms just muddiez the watersbeven more with jargon. You, me, pemerton and jerome might come to a clearer understanding, but then thebnew term actually creates a hurdle between us and the rest of the gaming community. Sort of like how you have a gulf between forge proponents and people who use the same language as them but to mean different things.

Jargon is an unfortunate side-effect of discussing any topic in depth, but to eschew it entirely is to limit ourselves to vague and contentless discussions. I would rather we discuss it in terms of clear definitions here, and acknowledge that the wider community uses it pretty loosely and, thus, we need to take care when using it as a term.

Like I said, a character simulator isnt the goal here, the goal is to tighten the space between player and character. But i will say, the player is still expected to play his characters prsonality and talents. If his character is socially inept, and he lands a bravo buff performance, i would weigh the fact that he is weak in that area or i may employ a skill roll. But it is a social game and in a role play heavy session like this the players own social skill is going to matter, just like a tactically minded pc may have an edge in combat. That doesn't bother me, because the trade off of leaning on social skills to balance out the players isn't worth it. It doesn't create the experience i want. Just like in my investigation adventures, i expect the players to put together the clues. There is certainly room to challenge the player directly because in a lot of ways this shortens the space between player and character.

I will add that the more you do this the more intuitive it becomes. Characterization still occurs, and all of my npcs are distinct personalities.

Some while back I viewed this as the ultimate expression of roleplaying, too. I ran a game set in the World of Darkness, but using the Theatrix systems - it was a blast for a while. These days I view it as just one more style to use - one more colour on the pallette, so to speak.

If you enjoy it, incidentally, Theatrix is an OOP system worth tracking down for a peek. The author ruffled a few folks with some opinionated posts to rgfa back in the day, but it has some very neat ideas for adding some structure to the processes of running diceless (i.e. no randomisers at all) resolution systems. The concept of a "locus of control" is especially useful, I find.

 

[chaochou]

Otherwise, there will always remain the suspicion of a hidden agenda that can't be discussed. I think "rollplaying versus roleplaying" as a concept is emprically foolish. Show us otherwise.

I agree, but can't xp.

but I'm talking about roleplaying, here, as opposed to talking about a roleplaying game. I regard these as distinct but very much related concepts.

I would xp for the clarity, even though I disagree strongly (so the rest of this post is a general response to all those who have voiced a similar opinion...)

I think we share a common, well-understood word for 'playing a role' when doing so does not involve a 'game': it's called acting. I think 'game' is implicit in roleplaying, whether it's D&D or Cops and Robbers.

I don't see 'playing a role' and 'engaging the system' as opposite ends of a spectrum. I see plenty of elements of system which integrate with, support and actively enhance 'playing the role'. Beliefs, Traits, Instincts and the Duel of Wits all from The Burning Wheel, extended contests in HeroWars, Keys in The Shadow of Yesterday, Moves in Apocalypse World - the examples go on and on. It's noticeable that such elements often explicitly detail the need to engage the fiction before the mechanics.

Here's a sample from The Duel of Wits mechanics (Burning Wheel Gold, p393):

When playing actions, you must speak your part. Spitting out moves in a robotic fashion is not a viable use of these mechanics. The arguments must be made. Of course, no-one expects you to be eloquent, so just the main thrust or a simple retort usually suffices (although a little embellishment is nice).
​

(my bold) How much clearer could it be that the 'playing the role' and 'the system' are integrated?

Here's Apocalypse World, p12:

The rules for moves is to do it, do it. In order for it to be a move and for the player to roll dice the character has to do something that counts as a move....

...There are two ways they sometimes don't line up and it is your job as MC to deal with them.

First is when a player says only that her character makes a move without having her character take any such action. For instance "I go aggro on him." Your answers should be "Cool. What do you do?" "I try to seduce him." "Cool, what do you do?"

​

(author's bold. Note: going aggro and seduction are both 'social' moves).

In both cases the texts explicitly call out the need for the character (not the player) to drive the mechanics. What's more, both systems force the player to stake something in order to play the game - if you want to roll you have to be willing not just to fail, but to lose.

So, for example, in a Duel of Wits I want to persuade the Duke to lend me 30 soldiers. He wants my fiance. Am I willing to stake my fiance to get that army I need or not? How is that less revealing of my character than a five minute 'in character speech' of whatever expedient platitudes will get me GM approval?

Compare and contrast with this: Diplomacy :: d20srd.org

It's just abstract mechanics (and bad ones at that, imo) with no mention of how diplomacy actually works at my table right now and, again, absolutely nothing at stake for the character. According to those rules my 7th level bard walks round surrounded by an almost irresistable 'zone of friendship' with speaking in character an optional extra.

I'm sure I could dig up other, equally horrific, examples. Little wonder social mechanics have such a bad reputation and people seek to exclude them from definitions of 'roleplaying' - even though doing so is, in my opinion, doing a huge disservice to many fantastic games (and players).