D&D 5E What is the "role" in roleplaying

[Lehrbuch]

The historical sense of the term in the context of "roleplaying games" is absolutely tied to the word "roleplaying" in other contexts, like "roleplaying" in therapy, and that is 100% about "pretend to be another person to some extent", and 0% about "fulfill a functional role in a thing".

It's always been abundantly clear that "pretend to be another person to some extent" is the intent of the game.

This is illustrated by the simple idea that right from original D&D onwards the character sheet has a space for the player name and a separate space for the character name.

 

[pemerton]

Does play a personality mean play acting, or does playing a personality just mean choosing actions based on the personality - in addition to the chosen class? I.e., what would a fighter with these personality traits do in this situation?

The two are related because - at least in some RPGs, like classic D&D - "personality traits" aren't something that figures in the game except by play acting of some sort. Eg AD&D just doesn't have any way to express "hates kobolds" as part of the function/capabilities/responsiblities of the character. (Contrast 5e, which does, via the personality/inspiration rules.)

Thinking more about the personality thing in the classic game - there is not the least suggesion - not at all, not one bit - in Gygax's PHB that I might make choices for my character based on personality, as opposed to based on what is expedient from the point of view of dungeoneering.

Here are some of the key passages (PHB pp 107, 109):

Now assume that a game is scheduled tomorrow, and you are going to get ready for it well in advance so as to have as much actual playing time as possible - no sense in spending precious adventuring minutes with the mundane preparations common to the game.

First get in touch with all those who will be included in the adventure, or if all are not available, at least talk to the better players so that you will be able to set an objective for the adventure. . . . some firm obiective should be established and then adhered to as strongly as possible. Note, however, that inflexibility or foolish stubbornness is often fatal. More about that a bit later.

Once the obiective has been established, consider how well the party playing will suit the needs which it has engendered. Will the characters have the means of accomplishing the goal? Is it well-balanced, so that it can cope with typical problems expected in the fullfillment of the objective? Will it be necessary to find mercenary non-player characters or hire men-at-arms in order to give the party the necessary muscle? Is any special equipment needed? When agreement regarding these and any similar questions has been reached, each participant must ready his or her character, but preparations must be made with the welfare of the whole group in mind.

Co-operation amongst party members is a major key to success, particularly when the characters are relatively low-level. . . .Co-operation must begin when the party prepares for the adventure and continue through safe return to base and division of spoils - including the special treatment required for any unfortunate characters cursed, diseased, maimed, or killed.

Each character has a selection of equipment which he or she will carry on the adventure. Particulars should be given to the party if any equipment is possibly redundant, newly conceived, or of possible special use considering the established goal for the adventure. In like manner, spells must be selected in co-operation with other spell-users in general, so that attack, defence, and assistance modes will be balanced properly and compliment the strengths and weaknesses of the party as a whole. Characters must know each other's strengths and weaknesses, physical and mental, in order to meet the problem posed with the correct character or combination thereof. Does the group have sufficient equipment of the elementary sort to meet both expected and unexpected challenges (ropes, spikes, poles, torches, oil, etc.)? Are we burdening ourselves with too much because of simple duplication (too many torches, everybody has a 10' pole, and so on)?. Do we have as broad a spectrum of spells as possible so as to be able to have a good chance against the unexpected, considering the objective and what it requires in spells? Is there some magic item which one of the party members possesses that will be of special help, or general assurance of survival, in this adventure? All this should be done before play begins, for it is time consuming, and the readying of a party can require several hours if there are more than six characters involved. . . .

Your party has an objective, and wondering monsters are something which stand between them and it. The easiest way to overcome such difficulties is to avoid the interposing or trailing creature if at all possible.. . .Do not be sidetrocked. A good referee will have many ways to distract an expedition, many things to draw attention, but ignore them if at all possible. The mappers must note a11 such things, and another expedition might be in order another day to investigate or destroy something or some monster, but always stay with what was planned if at all possible, and wait for another day to handle the other matters. This is not to say that something hanging like a ripe fruit ready to be plucked must be bypassed, but be relatively certain that what appears to be the case actually is. Likewise, there are times when objectives must be abandoned. . . .

All members of the expedition should be ready and willing to part with any goods, money, and magic items in order to save lives. Failing that, each should be willing to fight to the death to assure the survival and success of the party. This will happen when mutual trust exists. . . .

Generally evil characters, particularly chaotic evil ones, are prone to be troublesome and hurtful to the party. They should accordingly be shunned when possible. Selfish neutrals are similar to evil characters, but their price is usually easier to meet, and it is therefore easier to integrate them into an expedition which will depend on co-operation for success. The character of good alignment who is basically unco-operative - often acting as an evil or (selfish) neutral would - is another matter, for such players usually join under the pretense of being helpful and willing to act in the best interest of the party. Undoubtedly the best way to take care of such players is to expel them from the group as soon as circumstances permit.​

Nothing is said anywhere about character personality. The idea that I might not pack rope because I'm playing a forgetful character; that I might choose only fire spells because my wizard is a pyromaniac; that my cleric might refuse to heal some PCs because she doesn't like their behaviour; etc - these are all completely absent.

Which is to say, the "role" is being conceived of not as a character's personality, but as a function or capacity that the character brings to the game.

 

[pemerton]

Video game RPGs can have far more rigid and linear plots, but are still called "RPGs".

I've never played one and don't know much about them. I was thinking of more-or-less mainstream tabletop RPGs.

Having individual mechanics is a far cry from having a function or role at the table.

From the OP:

Roleplaying means playing a role.

There are (at least) two things this could mean.

It could mean filling a role that is defined by functions, capacities, responsibilities, etc. (Being a firefighter is a different role from being a librarian.)

Broadly speaking, a character's mechanics establish that character's functions, capacities, etc.

In the most recent session of MHRP that I GMed, Wolverine recognised an old foe and dealt that foe trauma (by killing him with his claws). That is the function assigned to Wolverine by the "Old Friends, Old Enemies" milestone. In doing this, Wolverine also killed someone in front of innocents - which is the function assigned by the "And what I do isn't very nice" milestone.

The player wasn't just making up a personality for Wolverine and acting it out at the table. The player was filling the Wolverine role. Obviously this produces a very different game from what Gygax had in mind with classic D&D, but that's because in the intervening 40-odd years RPG designers have worked out new ways to give characters functions, capacities, etc. (That said, you could see Gygax's alignment rules - which he regards as part of character function - as a very embryonic anticipation of the sorts of personality mechanics one sees in a game like MHRP.)

your hypothesis that the "role" in "role-playing games" equates with "filling a role at the table" just doesn't work with the totally of role-playing games.

I never said that it did.

From the OP again:

I think the idea that roleplaying is more about character personality than character function comes to the fore in the 2nd ed AD&D PHB

You seem to think I'm saying something that I'm not. I'm not asking what the essence of roleplaying is. I'm asking posters "how they primarily think of roleplaying". I primarily think of it in terms of function. That's why I like MHRP, and respect Gygaxian D&D very much though I'm no good at it either as player or GM, and don't really get into 2nd ed AD&D. The distinction that I drew in the OP is, for me at least, a useful way of trying to explain these preferences for some RPGs over others.

 

[pemerton]

I rather read the poll's question as asking us if we consider our PCs as pawns in a game or as characters in a fiction. I mostly play in what some people here call Pawn Stance, so I chose the first option. But I also always mix that in with the Actor Stance, what the second option seems to refer to.

The poll really seems to me to be asking us, through implication, "can an rpg played solely in pawn stance?" And to that I say: Theoretically, yes, but I doubt anyone does.

Good post. What follows is not meant to be disagreement but elaboration.

The "function" approach needn't be limited to pawn stance. For instance, even in Gygaxian D&D my play of my character is meant to factor in alignment, which means that my character will be driven by some motivation other than simply the will of the player.

If the function of the character is expanded to include a wider variety of personality or motivational elements, you can get very rich non-pawn RPGing without adopting the "roleplaying = personality" approach. At least in my experience.

 

[pemerton]

It still sounds like "let's draw some battle-lines" to me.

I don't think so.

Clearly not everyone thinks of RPGing the same way. That's why some like (say) 2nd ed AD&D and others don't; why some like 4e and others don't; etc.

Given this, why not try and talk about what different ways of thinking about what RPing is are related to one or the other sort of preference? The idea that we can't talk about our different preferences without telling others that their's are wrong seems a bit sad.

 

[pemerton]

On the other hand, one of the things that a lot of us grognards miss is the "Gygaxian prose", which is filled with anecdotes and random fiction.

Just out of curiosity, what's your favourite anecdote from the DMG? (I don't recall there being any anecdotes in the PHB, other than the illusionist with 20 orcs.)

Mine is the example of the fighter Celowin Silvershield trying to purchase the services of the wizard Llewellyn ap-Owen, but being turned away from Llewellyn's tower by his henchman Tregillish Mul. A close second is Party B, especially Gutboy Barrelhouse (a version of whom figured as a NPC in my 4e game) and Balto the monk.

But I don't see that this changes anything about how Gygax was conceiving of the game being played.

As for the "I wear yellow and am afraid of spiders", those were the exact sort of traits I saw on 1E characters.

OK - but nowhere does Gygax talk about anything like this in his presentation of the game. Nor does Moldvay.

Are you saying that, because my character swings a sword, I'm now engaged in a "functional role"?

I'm saying that if someone writes up an example of roleplaying, and tells me a lot about the stuff the characters are doing in order to succeed at their dungeon-exploration goal (eg poking things with poles, stabbing things with swords, whatever it might be) but tells me nothing about their motivations (it is assumed, per p 96 of Gygax's DMG, that they are looking "to find the place they are to seek their fortunes in"), their feelings, their appearance, even their names - then that person is presenting the playing of a role as being a matter of assuming a certain set of functions rather than developing and acting out a distinct personality.

I still think of roleplaying as being about the persona. Any functional roles are purely a consequence of the persona.

OK. That doesn't mean that I'm wrong about how I think of roleplaying, though.

Nor does it mean I'm wrong in my reading of Gygax.

Functional niche wasn't even a consideration. We just adjusted our tactics/strategy.

As far as I can see this is orthogonal to the OP and the poll question.

I had a player play a cleric, in the first B/X game I GMed, because he rolled a high WIS. The other character was a halfling because that player enjoyed The Hobbit.

There are any number of ways of choosing what character to play, what party to field, etc. But that's not what I was asking about. I was asking about what you think of when you think of roleplaying a character. Do you think of occupying a certain role (broadly speaking, a role defined by your character's mechanical components which then give your character a certain function/capacity etc within the game), or of acting out a certain role (broadly speaking, a role defined by an imagined personality)?

My assumption in starting the thread is that not everyone will think the same way. It hadn't occurred to me that so many posters would think that there's only one reasonable or legitimate way to think of roleplaying, though.

 

[pemerton]

The OP had their opinion, tried to find evidence to support it, and then posted their definition.

I don't much care how other people play D&D. We each have our own style. But I do draw umbrage when people try and force their definitions into "roleplaying" as a whole.

I suggest you reread the OP. No one is trying to force any definitions onto anything.

The OP identified two possible meanings of roleplaying, and conjectured that there might be others (via the paranthetical "at least"). It then asked people which one they primarily think of as roleplaying. On the way through it also offered some thoughts on the history of D&D:

The idea that playing a role means performing a certain function has been replaced by the idea that roleplaying means being interesting, entertaining and "fun" in the depiction of the character at the table. This is reinforced by the book going on to describe classes as "occupations" and "archetypes" rather than demarcating approaches to meeting the challenges of the game, which is how Gygax described them.

How do you think of roleplaying? As function? Or as depiction of a character's personality. Post. Or fill in the poll.

I didn't even say which one I thought of - whether I think that the "replacement" that I identified is something I favour or disfavour. (Though I did vote on the poll as soon as the thread was posted.)

I have no idea - literally - why you think that asking people what they think equates to finding evidence to support an opinion. (The only opinion expressed is one about what Gygax though roleplaying involved. And as far as I can tell you don't even disagree with that - you just don't like his approach to RPGing, which is fair enough. I don't run or play Gygaxian D&D either, though I suspect for different reasons from yours.)

It's even more a stretch on the part of the OP to attribute the term "roleplaying game" to Gygax

Again, I suggest that you reread the OP. No such attribution is made. I simply talk about what Gygax meant by roleplaying, in order to elucidate one way of thinking about it. I also quote the 2nd ed AD&D PHB - presumably that is Zeb Cook - in order to elucidate what I believe to be a different way of thinking about it.

I'm not saying that either Gygax or Cook invented roleplaying games. Though I think it's fair to say that Gygax had a big influence on the sort of roleplaying game that is typified by D&D and similar games.

You can play Clue and roleplay. You can adopt the persona of Professor Plum as you play.

You can totally RP through Clue, justifying your characters actions based on the adopted personal of Professor Plum. Having stretches of in character interactions across the table. (Try it. It's awesome fun.)

You can roleplay in the sense of engaging in some spontaneous characterisation and dialogue. But not in the sense of adopting a person who has distinct capacities and functions that matter to the content of an unfolding shared fiction. (To the extent that Clue has an unfolding shared fiction, it will unfold the same way regardless of whether or how I characterise Professor Plum.)

The only RPG experiences I've personally had which resemble the Clue game that you describe are some CoC games run by GMs who are very skilled at narration and characterisation. Those were fun, but I wouldn't want that to be the main sort of RPGing that I engage in.

As a sole arbiter of what constitutes the R in RPG, functionality doesn't cut it. Pawns in a board game have functionality.

But, by that definition of "role", hockey and football (both types) are role-playing games.

But the functions of a pawns in a board game don't determine any shared fiction. Nor do the functions of team sports players.

Maybe the OP should have been clearer about that, but I took for granted that we're all on the same page that RPGs differ from boardgames precisely in virtue of having a shared fiction which is shaped, at least in part, by the players' play of their characters. I certainly didn't intend, and nor did I assert, that is a pastime in which various participants occupy functionally-defined roles = is a RPG.

 

[Mercule]

My assumption in starting the thread is that not everyone will think the same way. It hadn't occurred to me that so many posters would think that there's only one reasonable or legitimate way to think of roleplaying, though.

There are plenty of ways to play D&D "correctly". I'm not calling anyone out for badwrongfun. We're just getting to the definition of the word "roleplaying", though, per the poll question.

Roleplaying is the fiction part of the game -- creating a persona and playing it. You can have a heavy dose of roleplay or a light dose of it, but it's still an RPG and you're still playing it "right". The groups in the 1970s largely came from the wargaming set and were likely to be fairly light on the roleplay.

Had you asked "what do you enjoy most about roleplaying/D&D/etc.? a) playing the fictional persona or b) filling a functional niche on a team" the answer might have been different. Same with "how much roleplay do you like in your games? a) heavy or b) light".

But, you asked "how do you think of roleplaying?" which requires a definition of the word roleplaying. I primarily think of roleplaying as being the persona. That is the very definition of the word. The functional niche may flow from the persona or a persona may be created to fill the existing niche. Either way, roleplaying is synonymous with the persona.

 

[pemerton]

There are plenty of ways to play D&D "correctly". I'm not calling anyone out for badwrongfun. We're just getting to the definition of the word "roleplaying", though, per the poll question.

But the poll doesn't ask about the definition of the word roleplaying. It asks how you think of roleplaying, with reference to do different ways of thinking about the "role" in roleplaying - function vs personality.

If there was a poll asking "What do you think of as the paradigm of D&D fanatsy - REH or Tolkien?" it wouldnt be asking you to define fantasy. Just like my poll, it would be asking how you orient your thinking about fantasy - what you treat as your lodestone, or anchor (or other metaphor of choice).

Roleplaying is the fiction part of the game -- creating a persona and playing it.

That is not the only fiction part of the game, though - so saying that roleplaying is the fiction, and saying that roleplaying is the persona, are not equivalent.

For instance, the ability of a MU to cast spells is also the fiction part of the game. The existence of a cavern roof, which can be turned into mud with a Transmute Rock to Mud spell, is an element of the fiction part of the game. Poking a skeleton with a 10' pole is making a "move" in the shared fiction of the game. But none of these relate to playing a persona, in anything but the most obvious sense that each player in a RPG has one character ("figure", in the old language) that s/he controls.

But, you asked "how do you think of roleplaying?" which requires a definition of the word roleplaying.

No it doesn't, anymore than "How do you think of fantasy?", or "How do you think of music - Beethoven, or Beatles?", does.

 

[dco]

Playing a character the way you want.