What Part Does the Role Play in the Role-Playing Game?

[bloodtide]

I disagree, because the two ideas aren't in conflict. Recognizing that the character is never going to be truly separate from your personality isn't in conflict or contradictory to the idea that one is choosing actions in deliberate counter to their own sensibilities.

While I agree most people are unwilling...or unable....to role play a fictional character separate from their personality........it is not impossible.

 

[Emberashh]

While I agree most people are unwilling...or unable....to role play a fictional character separate from their personality........it is not impossible.

Again, its not a matter of never being able to make choices that run counter to your sensibilities.

That is completely besides the point, which is that doing that is still reflective of your personality.

 

[aramis erak]

I'm going to go out on a limb and define role-playing as taking on a role and responding to situations as if you were that person.

TO me, the role part is simply making decisions based upon the character's established definitions rather than one's own abilities.
If you're playing yourself, you're not assuming a role.
But I don't much care if my players are simply projecting themselves into the situation so long as it's not jarringly obvious to anyone else at the table, myself included.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Good thing I never said that.

Words do matter, and I wasn't being loose in how I said what I said. Saying player and character aren't separate is not the same thing as saying they're the same.

While a fair cop about my misrepresenting you (not my intent, but that doesn't mean I didn't do it), I still disagree with the point you're claiming here. I think they are separate in a lot of important ways, and if you disagree I can't follow you.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Actor and character are separate in many ways and the same in many other ways. Both of those statements are always true.

Now the proportions of each for a particular person will be different.. some people are more able or willing to subsume themselves into a role than others do... but every character has a little bit of the actor in it because the actor is the one experiencing everything the character is going through, and every actor has a little bit of the character in it because they aren't playing themselves (or even in the case when an actor IS "playing themself", the situation the actor is is artificial and thus is driven for the character.)

How much a player chooses to subsume their identity into the role will end up being the style of game the table end up playing. Some will want more, some will want less.

 

[Emberashh]

While a fair cop about my misrepresenting you (not my intent, but that doesn't mean I didn't do it), I still disagree with the point you're claiming here. I think they are separate in a lot of important ways, and if you disagree I can't follow you.

Again, you're not actually contradicting what I'm saying. You're arguing from a position of wanting to disagree, because you want the absolute that they are fully separated, but they are not, as you've now admitted.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Again, you're not actually contradicting what I'm saying. You're arguing from a position of wanting to disagree, because you want the absolute that they are fully separated, but they are not, as you've now admitted.

No, I'm arguing that your statement, at best, doesn't really say anything meaningful.

 

[ART!]

The role plays the playing role in the role-playing game.

 

[Emberashh]

No, I'm arguing that your statement, at best, doesn't really say anything meaningful.

And you'd be incorrect, because in context I'm making the point that there isn't a point in dwelling on where a decision originates; it is always the player making the decision.

Which decision ought to be made is a different question altogether, and as OP states, there's no wrong answers to which methodology the player takes in deciding.

Its perfectly fine to base your decision on what a character would do, but getting lost in the weeds trying to act like thats anyone's decision but yours is, well, getting lost in the weeds.

Immersion is cool, and getting lost in a character is pretty much the peak roleplaying experience, but it is still all just you. There is no character making decisions without you. You're the player.

This is another reason why paying attention to what video game designers are doing is important, because video games are just as effected by this and its a big topic in that sphere, precisely because video game designers have to work to specifically reward how different players engage with a given game.

How one person plays The Last of Us is going to be very different from the next, and the uniqueness that results only becomes more potent the more open the game is, all the way up to something like a TTRPG where there can be practically no limits.

 

[Thomas Shey]

And you'd be incorrect, because in context I'm making the point that there isn't a point in dwelling on where a decision originates; it is always the player making the decision.

And I think that's only true in a way that is sometimes unimportant. Its one of the arguments I see people bring up when immersion is discussed, and it just seems dismissive there, and the same here.