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

[pemerton]

I voted for the second, because I enjoy playing characters that have a specific personality and playing to that personality (and seeing that personality grown and/or change due to events), but with two caveats.

The first, and most important, is that the personality is not independent of the class.

<snip>

there are a lot of different types of people that can be contained within one class, but you have to be somewhat mindful of the class when building the character.

<snip>

I generally agree with EGG that a character must be designed to approach the challenges of the game, and part of the game is cooperating with other players to overcome the challenges.

I want to tentatively suggest that this looks like agreement with the first option - roleplaying is about function (class, cooperating to meet the challenges of the game) but as part of engaging in that something else that is fun occurs - namely, the emergence and enjoyment of the PC personality.

 

[pemerton]

It is peculiar that nowadays we have largely learned to prefer freedom from rules when it comes to create a PC's personality, and therefore we tend to reject rules restrictions and compulsions to non-tactical behaviour, while yet at the same time we have shifted to calling such non-tactical behaviour "roleplay", which is the part we don't want our "roleplay games" books to tell us how to do.

I think the "we" in your post is a bit over-generalised. There is a significant, if nevertheless minority, approach to RPGing that prefers the mechanics of the game and the personality of the PC to interact in certain ways.

This is taking the idea that you set out - of classes bleeding from function in the stricter sense into story/narrative role - and deploying it through mechanical devices other than just class.

 

[billd91]

I think it's pretty obviously both in varying degrees depending on the play style of the group in question. I think the game encourages playing a distinct persona but that character also has particular skills that are selected to play a particular part in the party organization.

 

[delericho]

Interesting thread. I'm going to say "both".

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[pdzoch]

I would think that the original Gygax characterization of roleplaying being a function or responsibility in a playing group is most accurate, but I would never be adamant about that. My own gaming group does very little "personality" role playing, the class and race of their character being the primary definition of their character. So much of the rule book is based on the mechanics of a class and the various ways to flavor the class with feats, spells, weapons, magic, etc.

However, the roleplaying of personalities is a huge part of the game, it is why players write histories and backstories for their character. It is critical to developing adventures that matter to the character. Without the personalities, the game would probably be a bit boring and all the adventures interchangeable (I'm sure other DMs would agree that not all adventures are suited for all adventuring parties). It is interesting to note that I think even WOTC recognized that personality roleplaying may be a weak spot for players when they wrote their recommendation for using the DM's Inspiration Die: "Inspiration is a rule the Dungeon Master can use to reward you for playing your character in a way that’s true to his or her personality traits, ideal, bond, and flaw. Your DM can choose to give you inspiration for a variety of reasons. Typically, DMs award it when you play out your personality traits, give in to the drawbacks presented by a flaw or bond, and otherwise portray your character in a compelling way." Sure other ways can earn inspiration, but I doubt many DMs are handing out inspiration to a wizard for casting a spell or to a fighter for swinging a sword. I know the "Inspiration Die" is much maligned, but its connection to the personality roleplay suggests that the personality aspect of roleplay is not required as much as is the function of class in the game, but the personality aspect of roleplay certainly does make the game much more fun.

 

[TwoSix]

How does one resolve the question in a less structured narrativist game? Say a game like Monsterhearts, where the objective of the game is the creation of a personality that can drive dramatic tension?

 

[Mallus]

I've always defined role-playing games as: "Games where your playing piece is a fictional character and the game "board" is a fictional setting". So definitely the second option.

"Role" in the context of these games also means a certain discreet set of mechanic abilities/aptitudes, but how you use them is up to the player and their group. Most games I have play experience with don't have rigidly-defined social roles in their settings, ie I don't play Pendragon or Empire of the Petal Throne. So "role" is almost always analogous to a role in a theatrical production, film, or novel - albeit ones full of terrible puns, gloriously bad historicity, and violence of Mark Millar or Warren Ellis-at-his-slummingest comic-book proportions.

 

[MonkeezOnFire]

I think the goal of role playing differs from game to game. Since this is posted on a forum for the 5th edition of Dungeon and Dragons, I answered the first. D&D is a game about fantasy heroes embarking on high adventures and doing fantastical things. The bulk of it's rules are dedicated to resolving actions, particularly combat-related actions. Dungeons and Dragons is primarily concerned about what a character can do, not so much about who and what they are. 5th ed. did add bond, flaw, trait ideals to the character sheet, but in reality these mechanically affect very little.

Now there are plenty of excellent role playing games that mechanically emphasize the characters and the narrative in which they exist. Games like Burning Wheel focus heavily on characters and give mechanics for their traits and quirks that actively affect play. Character's personality and outlook also grow and change and the game accommodates for this through it's mechanics.

I'm not saying that D&D can't be played with a narrative and character focus. But I am arguing that by default D&D offers no support for this kind of play, meaning that in order to play the game in this matter you must either homebrew a set of rules that do add mechanical incentive to care about a character's traits and personality, or play in this matter without supporting mechanics which is basically just dropping the game part completely and entering into free form role play (which is not a bad thing, it just ceases to be an rpg).

 

[Caliburn101]

I always want to see my players become their characters as far as their 'method acting' capabilities allow.

I in turn become the NPCs in each case, and mannerism, speech pattern and tone of voice changes to reflect each one.

Suspension of disbelief is harder to maintain the more third party references creep in, or if OOC 'breaks' are too frequent.

If the players feel 'transported' to my world, then we have all done our jobs in my opinion. It's what the 'role' can facilitate if you put in the effort...