This post is inspired by a discussion on TvTropes.org about a proposed trope for children's shows that try to deliver a message of "be yourself." The problem is that often this message is delivered by a character telling another something along the lines of "what you're doing right now isn't 'being yourself', do X instead" - which is itself imposing an idea of how the character should be, thus contradicting the whole message of"be yourself."
It seems to me that this conflict also characterizes much of the discussion on "roleplaying" on these forums, especially with regards to which systems or rules best promotes "roleplaying." Presumably "roleplaying" means playing a role - that is, behaving as the way your character would behave in the given situation. However, a lot of the discussion seems to assume that "the way your character would behave" is one particular way.
For example, in my experience, the following activities are usually held up as examples of roleplaying:
1. Elaborate descriptions of actions, both in and out of combat.
2. Improvised stunts.
3. Non-combat methods of conflict resolution.
4. Incorporating character backgrounds into play.
5. Emotional conflict.
On the other hand, the following activities are usually not considered roleplaying:
1. Character optimization.
2. Use of primarily powers and attacks listed on the character sheet.
3. Using the rules to best advantage in combat (and otherwise).
4. Using combat as the main means of getting past obstacles.
It is widely recognized that these two lists are not mutually exclusive: just because someone likes using good tactics in combat doesn't mean he can't also roleplay well out of combat. But there does seem to be an idea that if you only do things listed in the second list, and not items in the first list, then you aren't doing much roleplaying.
The purpose of this thread is to challenge this assumption. Suppose you had a character who was very interested in learning how to maximize his combat capabilities, believed in focusing on tactics that he has trained for and tested rather than elaborate, possibly unreliable stunts, and wasn't concerned much with diplomacy or emotional conflict. Then that character would probably do items on the second list, so doing items on the second list while avoiding items on the first list WOULD be "roleplaying" that character.
One example of this is a thread I saw where a poster said he preferred "old school" games with less rules than games like 4e with more rules because more rules induce players to do things that "give the best chance of success as defined by the rules" rather than thing that "would be logical for an adventurer to do in that situation." This is a false dichotomy, because the thing that gives the best chance of success is by definition "most logical," and the very purpose of the rules is to define the chance for success of different actions. It's the same idea: he's assuming that doing things outside the rules is required for roleplaying, while in reality it makes perfect sense for an adventurer to do something that is defined by the rules if it gives the best chance for success.
(DISCLAIMER: I am not arguing for or against any rule system in general. I am simply pointing out that this particular argument rests on a faulty assumption.)
----
So let's start this discussion off with some questions:
1. Am I correct in my assessment of the way that many players currently think about "roleplaying"?
2. Do you agree that it's possible to roleplay by doing items on the second list?
3. What does this imply for houserule ideas that reward roleplaying, say by awarding bonus XP or valuable "tokens" for "good roleplaying?" Does rewarding "good roleplaying" inherently require choosing particular types of actions that qualify as "good roleplaying", thus restricting possible character types as described above?
It seems to me that this conflict also characterizes much of the discussion on "roleplaying" on these forums, especially with regards to which systems or rules best promotes "roleplaying." Presumably "roleplaying" means playing a role - that is, behaving as the way your character would behave in the given situation. However, a lot of the discussion seems to assume that "the way your character would behave" is one particular way.
For example, in my experience, the following activities are usually held up as examples of roleplaying:
1. Elaborate descriptions of actions, both in and out of combat.
2. Improvised stunts.
3. Non-combat methods of conflict resolution.
4. Incorporating character backgrounds into play.
5. Emotional conflict.
On the other hand, the following activities are usually not considered roleplaying:
1. Character optimization.
2. Use of primarily powers and attacks listed on the character sheet.
3. Using the rules to best advantage in combat (and otherwise).
4. Using combat as the main means of getting past obstacles.
It is widely recognized that these two lists are not mutually exclusive: just because someone likes using good tactics in combat doesn't mean he can't also roleplay well out of combat. But there does seem to be an idea that if you only do things listed in the second list, and not items in the first list, then you aren't doing much roleplaying.
The purpose of this thread is to challenge this assumption. Suppose you had a character who was very interested in learning how to maximize his combat capabilities, believed in focusing on tactics that he has trained for and tested rather than elaborate, possibly unreliable stunts, and wasn't concerned much with diplomacy or emotional conflict. Then that character would probably do items on the second list, so doing items on the second list while avoiding items on the first list WOULD be "roleplaying" that character.
One example of this is a thread I saw where a poster said he preferred "old school" games with less rules than games like 4e with more rules because more rules induce players to do things that "give the best chance of success as defined by the rules" rather than thing that "would be logical for an adventurer to do in that situation." This is a false dichotomy, because the thing that gives the best chance of success is by definition "most logical," and the very purpose of the rules is to define the chance for success of different actions. It's the same idea: he's assuming that doing things outside the rules is required for roleplaying, while in reality it makes perfect sense for an adventurer to do something that is defined by the rules if it gives the best chance for success.
(DISCLAIMER: I am not arguing for or against any rule system in general. I am simply pointing out that this particular argument rests on a faulty assumption.)
----
So let's start this discussion off with some questions:
1. Am I correct in my assessment of the way that many players currently think about "roleplaying"?
2. Do you agree that it's possible to roleplay by doing items on the second list?
3. What does this imply for houserule ideas that reward roleplaying, say by awarding bonus XP or valuable "tokens" for "good roleplaying?" Does rewarding "good roleplaying" inherently require choosing particular types of actions that qualify as "good roleplaying", thus restricting possible character types as described above?
