What is role playing?

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Reading a few posts in teh RttTOEE thread I see stuff saying it's not a role playing adventure. Well what is your definition of role playing? We had a 1/2 orc paladin of Heironeous in the party a while back. He was devout, he was almost getting to the point where his zeal was endangering his ethics and code. Getting back to the point, he fought a lot. He lived to see evil die on his blade. The ultimate act of goodness in his mind was to rid the world of some evil being that threatened law and order. However he didn't spend lots of time making diplomacy checks and doing the activity that a lot of people here seem to think constitutes role playing. Can't you have plenty of role playing in a game that is more hack and slash than PC's sitting at royal parties and making inuiendo rolls and hashing treaties. Isn't role playing how the player runs his PC instead of what kind of locations or situations the DM throws at them? Isn't interacting with the other PC's as the characters would role playing?

 

[Zappo]

I agree 100%. The association between 'good roleplaying' and 'lots of diplomacy' is as wrong as it is common.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Yeah, I hate reading the posts that say, "well we are really roleplayers becuase we have had 1 combat in the 3 years the game has been going and no PC has a stat over 11...". I'm thinking, well we roleplay too and we had four battles last session!

 

[Bonedagger]

"What is role playing?"

............You sound like a troll.

Now where did I put that bat guano and sulfur?

 

[Jodo Kast]

You guys are sooooo right on. Role-playing ... let's examine the word. Role: A part, or character, performed by an actor; hence, a part or function taken or assumed by any one. By playing a role, you are taking the part or function of a character. Some characters are skilled diplomats. Others are grim warriors with little use for diplomacy. If your character description is a "gruff dwarven warrior who relies on the sharpness of his axe rather than his wit or tongue," than it would actually be poor role-playing to engage in one lengthy diplomatic interaction after another. Good role-playing would dictate that you play the character as a zealous combatant with no breath to waste parlaying with the enemy.

Roll-playing is really relying on dice rolls and game mechanics to determine everything, rather than getting into character. A roll-player decides his course of action based solely on what is most advantageous under the game rules, virtually ignoring character preferences.

What folks are complaining about when they ridicule a campaign as lacking in "role-playing" is generally the DM's storyline. They should remember that some of the best storylines in history involve more action than drama, the DM's #1 goal is to ensure that (s)he and his/her players have fun, and some of the coolest characters would rather kick ass than take names (Wulf Ratbane comes to mind).

 

[Otterscrubber]

In my experience "role-playing" means different things to different people. The key here is to try to understand what everyone involved wants to get out of a game like D&D when they play it. As a DM I find it is key to understand what each of your players wants out of sitting down for a few hours and rolling some dice.

Some characters like to solve puzzles, others like to treat it like a video game. I have seen some roleplayers play D&D without even having read the core books simply because they are so creative they like to wing every scenario without rules holding them back from a good story.

Still others are rules lawyers who try to argue with DMs about every little detail, spending much energy trying to find a loop in the rules to get out of a tricky situation rather then think that perhaps it is a puzzle to be solved instead of an out of game rule to be researched.

The one common thread is in all this is that eveyone thinks they are role-playing very well. Whether it is the puzzler, the min/maxer, a hack-n-slasher, a player who like to antagonize other players or DMs or someone who craves deeper plots rather than disconnected dungeon crawls they all beleive they are acting "in-character". The important thing here is that whatever their role that they enjoy themselves and enjoy the game according to their particular tastes as long as the other players are game.

 

[Frosty]

Reading a few posts in teh RttTOEE thread I see stuff saying it's not a role playing adventure. Well what is your definition of role playing? We had a 1/2 orc paladin of Heironeous in the party a while back. He was devout, he was almost getting to the point where his zeal was endangering his ethics and code. Getting back to the point, he fought a lot. He lived to see evil die on his blade. The ultimate act of goodness in his mind was to rid the world of some evil being that threatened law and order. However he didn't spend lots of time making diplomacy checks and doing the activity that a lot of people here seem to think constitutes role playing. Can't you have plenty of role playing in a game that is more hack and slash than PC's sitting at royal parties and making inuiendo rolls and hashing treaties. Isn't role playing how the player runs his PC instead of what kind of locations or situations the DM throws at them? Isn't interacting with the other PC's as the characters would role playing?

To me an important part of role-playing is character development. Not only development statwise. A good role-playing scenario makes the player's ask and answer questions about their characters. Questions like what makes them tick, what they fear and what they cherish.

Your half-orc is a bit too static in my opinion to be a great character. Sure, he is devout but it seems he is geared towards combat. A great character is a multi-layered character, not simply an excuse to fight battles. Why is the half-orc so devout? And if he is so good as to be a paladin does he ever have doubts about killing? Does he ever re-evaluate his views on ultimate goodness?

I realise that you enjoyed that character immensly and I'm happy for that. However, I know from experience that there can be much more to role-playing than that.

It seems that the general view on role-playing in a D&D-setting is the possibility to talk the party through a gruesome situation but there is more to role-playing than that.

You don't have to design a warrior to fight battles. You'll see plenty of combat anyway in this game, believe me. Look at a simple character as Luke Skywalker. He is not very profound but still he is more interesting than most characters with the same background. "Yeah, my family was killed by evil so now I try to eradicate every trace of evil in the world with my sword. There is this really cool prophesy that holds true that I one day will win." The reason for Luke being more interesting might be due to Yoda testing him. Luke learns that by destroying evil he risks becoming evil himself.

I find it difficult to provide D&D examples for what role-playing is about since such opportunities are so scarce in D&D but I'll use an example from Vampire the Masquerade instead.

In the series The Giovanni Chronicles the characters frequently find themsleves in situations were they need to answer to who they are. In the first adventure (The Last Supper) the characters are invited to a dinner. In and around this supper they are being interviewed by different vampires who may or may not become their mentors. The characters are put to some pretty nasty tests. Most test revolves around talking but their are some tests that requires action. Still, the adventure provides ample opportunity to hack and slay.

In the second adventure Blood and Fire the characters come to an old castle. The castle is inhabited by vampires with a different outlook on undeath. Those vampires try to recruit the characters. Again the characters are put to the test. I found that the answers had changed quite dramatically in some cases but in others the changes were more subtle and pretty disturbing too.

Words or diplomacy aren't always necessary to "role-play". Action might work just as well. The trick (for the DM) is to ask a question that can be answered with a swift kick to the head.

Oh. I've got a good example for you. Freeport. Spoilers ahead...
.
.
.

At one time we were invited to a party of sorts for the most influential people in Freeport. There must have been a dozen or so NPCs who were very anxious to know what the character's agenda was. They also found time to explain their situation in town politics. Even though this scene was mostly about talking the author managed to squeeze in a few combat opportunities as well. (It might have been my DM, mind you. I haven't read it.)

 

[Walter_J]

In my experience "role-playing" means different things to different people. The key here is to try to understand what everyone involved wants to get out of a game like D&D when they play it. As a DM I find it is key to understand what each of your players wants out of sitting down for a few hours and rolling some dice.

Some characters like to solve puzzles, others like to treat it like a video game. I have seen some roleplayers play D&D without even having read the core books simply because they are so creative they like to wing every scenario without rules holding them back from a good story.

Still others are rules lawyers who try to argue with DMs about every little detail, spending much energy trying to find a loop in the rules to get out of a tricky situation rather then think that perhaps it is a puzzle to be solved instead of an out of game rule to be researched.

The one common thread is in all this is that eveyone thinks they are role-playing very well. Whether it is the puzzler, the min/maxer, a hack-n-slasher, a player who like to antagonize other players or DMs or someone who craves deeper plots rather than disconnected dungeon crawls they all beleive they are acting "in-character". The important thing here is that whatever their role that they enjoy themselves and enjoy the game according to their particular tastes as long as the other players are game.

No. You are talking about the different approaches to playing a game and how different people play games differently, none of which has anything to do with "role playing". (You are not wrong. Ya just switched subject.) Role playing is exactly what it is, playing a role. When role playing you make decisions, speak and have your character act as you imagine your character would act and you can do this regardless of how you play a game. After all, you can pretend your someone else while playing Monopoly.

 

[Otterscrubber]

I think my point has been missed. My point was that everyone seems to think that role-playing is different. Case in point, Walter_J, you think that role playing and playing styles are different, someone else may not. You ask 20 players to define role-playing you will get 20 different answers. You seem to make a distinction between playing the game and role-playing, my examples state that no matter how many gamers I have met play the game they all consider themselves role-players. That is a fact. Simply by playing a character in D&D you are role-playing to some degree. Some people just don't consider it role-playing until you begin to play in a certain style, which is why how people play and role-playing can be perceived to go hand in hand.

 

[alsih2o]

one thing i didn't expect to see on the boards today- a poster with a publishers address sporting cojones enuf to start off a reply post with NO.


whether you agree with him or not, it is nice to see a publisher do something besides flux, vascilate and stall.


big nod to walter j.....