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

[Flexor the Mighty!]

None of my players come up with deep backgrounds to their PC or life stories. The character is usually defined by class and alignment and none of us are much of actors.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.)

It could mean performing (in the theatrical sense) a role that is defined by personality, motivation, etc. (Playing Hamlet is a different role from playing Sherlock Holmes.)

I'm not sure I see much of a difference.

When you're performing the role of a librarian, there are certain expectations of behavior and action that you have in that role.

When you're performing the role of of Hamlet, the expectations are different, but you're still there to embody a concept for people.

All the world's a stage, etc.

In D&D terms, when you play the role of a cleric, there are certain expectations of behavior and action that come with that role, including "casts healing spells" and "worships a god." You can violate those expectations, and in either case, you're "playing against type."

 

[posineg]

I would Choose the second choice, performing a role. The Player picks the role they want with the background, alignment, histories... each making the character "Role" unique. Role-play is used in the game to help set the adventure, advance plot and keep the players interested in the game. Imagine D&D as just a dice roll with no role-play, it would be just a board game.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Can't vote -- no answer for "both".

 

[Satyrn]

None of my players come up with deep backgrounds to their PC or life stories. The character is usually defined by class and alignment and none of us are much of actors.

Same for me and my group.

And though I too wanted to vote both, I voted for the option that weighs heavier.

 

[Mercule]

There's an assumption here, though, that good functional play is not memorable. But in my experience it often is - and part of remembering it also involves remembering what the players' character did, and hence what/who s/he was. For instance, when you get people to post about memories of "creative casting", they don't forget the class of the character because, in remembering what the situation was and what the spell was that was used, they also remember the details of the character.

It's a forced assumption/dichotomy based on the binary nature of the original question/poll. I can only pick one. I pick persona role over functional role. To show why the gun to my head decision breaks out that way, I set up contrived examples that assume only one or the other exists.

I agree that good functional play can be memorable. Really, though, the D&D games/characters I remember and that got talked about for years were because of the personas. I have no idea how many major foes my 2E Viking Berserker defeated; he may not have defeated any because he was stupid to the point of being a liability, but he's the character that everyone in the group remembers most and most fondly.

Thinking back, I probably have more memories and stories about "creative casting" and the like from playing Chainmail, Napoleonics, and Johnny Reb than I do from D&D. Sure, I've got some, but they aren't what won me to RPGs over miniatures gaming. It was the persona-role aspect. And that persona-role is, IMO, what makes the role-playing aspect of an RPG. The functional-role is what makes it a game.

Let me drill down on that, because I think it really gets to the fine point. A game has rules, victory conditions, etc. Good games allow for some creativity, sure, but knowing what you're supposed to do to "win" is part of the equation. Also, not winning doesn't mean you didn't have fun. I've gotten my butt handed to me in many games and still have fun. So, what makes a Role Playing Game different?

Is it the functional role you play? Well, I've got an old copy of HeroQuest. We quickly figured out that the Mage goes in the corner, the Barbarian stands in the open, the Elf gets a ranged weapon, and the Dwarf searches for traps. We all knew our functional roles. If that's the key to being a Role Playing Game, then HeroQuest is a Role Playing Game.

I play Smite, a MOBA. When I'm playing a Mage in Arena mode (for example), I check my stats after the game to make sure I have a high level of minion damage, but consider player damage a bonus -- because my functional role is crowd control. If the functional role is the important part, Smite in a Role Playing Game.

The second is a silly example, but the D&D rules could be used for an advanced HeroQuest game. Really, it would be the pure realization of a Role Playing Game, if the function is the Role.

Instead, I maintain that the persona role is what makes a Role Playing Game a Role playing game. It's what sets it apart from other games. In no other genre of game does one ponder what the playing piece would want to do.

If we want to pull out Gygax quotes, let's look at what he says in Role-Playing Mastery (yes, I'm a special sort of nerd):

Role-playing can be defined as acting out a make-believe position.

...that is, act out the identity and personality of an entirely different type of person...

With crystal clarity, Gygax conceived of "role playing" as being something persona-based. He was also heavily invested in making it a game, though. He admonishes players and GMs to know the rules of the game, play cooperatively, and even devotes a chapter of the book to "Tactical Mastery".

A successful RPG campaign will see the PCs have compatible functional roles, but this isn't because the functional roles are the R in RPG. It's because going dungeon-delving with a butcher, baker, and candlestick maker is going to be short, bloody, and not particularly interesting. Functional roles speak to competent characters/parties. Competent characters/parties tend to do more interesting things, making a more compelling story/game.

So, there are elements of both functional roles and persona roles in a role-playing game.

The functional roles fall under the Game part, at least as far as making sure you've got folks in the right functions, etc.

The persona roles fall under the Role Playing part and are what make actually make it a Role Playing game.

There is a rather large caveat, which is that IRL people tend to fall into functional roles when put on a team. So, it's actually not possible to completely ignore the functional roles, even when the focus is on the personas. Which leads to this:

These different approaches are what I am hoping the thread can explore.

I think a far more interesting question is, given that both persona roles and functional roles exist in an RPG whether one should start with the persona and see which function he gravitates towards, in play, or should the group start with assumptions (implicit or explicit) about what functions need to be filled and each player is responsible for creating a persona that fills one.

For me, I lean slightly towards the former -- create the personas and only adjust them if something looks disruptive. This can be a thief in a group that otherwise consists of a Paladin, Cleric of Pelor, and a NG Champion who is part of the city watch. Maybe changing to an elven Ranger who is stealthy, but only good at locks/traps because his father was a clock maker. I intentionally left the Mage function out because, IME, a smart party can cover a functional hole or two.

On the other hand, if the DM sells a campaign that is going to rarely leave Greyhawk, it might be double-plus ungood to not have a face character. Actually, you probably want a couple, but those are probably going to be obviously the most interesting characters to play in the stated game, so it'll work itself out.

And, maybe that's more it. I'm more concerned with having interesting personas because I assume the functions will either sort themselves out, naturally, or the savvy group of PCs will pursue challenges for which they're well equipped. But... I tend to favor extreme sandbox games where the PCs have that sort of freedom.

If you're playing a published adventure, you probably want to at least give a nod towards covering your bases. Even then, when I joined a Curse of Strahd game in progress, I came up with a persona that interested me then asked whether it filled a niche that needed filling. I think I discarded my first 5-6 choices, ending up with a Lore Bard, but I didn't stat anything out until I had a concept that I thought would fit.

 

[Mercule]

None of my players come up with deep backgrounds to their PC or life stories. The character is usually defined by class and alignment and none of us are much of actors.

Mine, either. They still tend to say, "I want a sneaky guy who will shiv someone, so I'll play a Rogue" or "I want a sneaky guy who won't shiv someone, so I'll play a Ranger." Either way, they choose "sneaky guy" because they like being sneaky, not because the party needs a sneaky guy to perform well.

It's a real gray area about whether it's persona or function. Based on the wording of the poll, I'm reading the persona piece as being cool/interesting/flavor and the functional as being "bases covered".

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Mine, either. They still tend to say, "I want a sneaky guy who will shiv someone, so I'll play a Rogue" or "I want a sneaky guy who won't shiv someone, so I'll play a Ranger." Either way, they choose "sneaky guy" because they like being sneaky, not because the party needs a sneaky guy to perform well.

It's a real gray area about whether it's persona or function. Based on the wording of the poll, I'm reading the persona piece as being cool/interesting/flavor and the functional as being "bases covered".

Pretty much fits my players too. They are not very story focused unless its recounting last weeks session or such things. But the party will make a new PC to fill a role if its vital.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I think the answer is definitely "both".

However, I selected "personality" as an answer to the poll because it is that factor of personality which is present, in varying degree, that makes a game a role-playing game rather than a cooperative board game (i.e. that's the difference between Dungeons & Dragons, and Descent: Journeys in the Dark).

It is also the presence of personality that allowed in the "old days" for two characters of identical class role to be distinctly different characters, at least to the degree that Nick's fighter and Greg's fighter didn't feel like interchangeable parts or duplicates while playing the game.

 

[Corwin]

I think this might be an equally interesting question, based on the OP thread title:

What is the "playing" in roleplaying?