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

[kenada]

When I play an a character in an RPG, I try to do what my character would do. Sometimes I know more or less about that up front (versus finding it out as we play). It’s caused problems in the past, so I try to be mindful now of what play is going to be about by avoiding games that are a poor fit.

Usually, that means playing someone other than myself. We did do a Call of Cthulhu game once where we were supposed to play ourselves. When things started going wrong, and I threatened an innkeeper to get information, I got told I wouldn’t do that.

 

[Emberashh]

But Ido try to make decisions for the character based on what the character would do rather than what I would do. Basic stuff like not metagaming is, to me, an absolute baseline.

This is why I think peak design is finding ways to make the two of these, metagaming and playing to the character (eg roleplaying), identical.

The Tension Pool is still a great example of that. It doesn't matter if the players approach the Pool from either perspective, because how they're engaging it is identical. You're weighing the risks of your actions.

 

[AnsaArlasta]

That's still you though. When you're the one making the decision, your personality is being reflected in the choices of the character even if they're superficially contradictory; your willingness to differ to another person's preferences is a reflection of your personal capacity for empathy, among other things if we wanted to dig into it, and is the only reason your character ultimately makes that choice in the metacontext.

So even though if you acted as yourself you'd go a different direction, you were only ever going to go in the direction you actually did. This is just what it is to have a player driven experience, which is what narrative improv fundamentally is. And thus, so are all RPGs, even the ones you may not think so. (I'm using player in the improv context, rather than its colloquial sensel

This logic holds up even when we start introducing more explicit splits between player and character skill, and only falls out when you remove any kind of decision making whatsoever and leave everything your character does to pure random chance (or some other, similarly choiceless mechanism). When I play, I partially immerse myself in the game. It's like a symbiosis between my personal experience and how I imagine the character I create. Everything is interconnected, really. I often went to computer clubs in Holland and spent nights there playing with friends. I just couldn't tear myself away from leveling up characters. Now I started reading about holandia kasyna, everything https://pl.bestcasinos-pl.com/holandia-kasyna/ is described here. I want to change games, it scares me that I play so enthusiastically. That's why I started reading something new and watching reviews on YouTube.

There's really nothing to discuss here. RPGs always reflect the player to some extent, because you decide what the character will be like and what he or she will do. It all depends on you.

 

[Theory of Games]

There's really nothing to discuss here. RPGs always reflect the player to some extent, because you decide what the character will be like and what he or she will do. It all depends on you.

Depends on the game. With D&D there's other factors like class, race, regional ethnicity, social standing and alignment that determine who a character is.

IME most players just play their character as if THEY are the character, which is disappointing.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

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

Well, for me, usually a significant, but not overwhelming one. It's certainly not the be-all and end-all. For me, the reason I play and run RPGs is because they are fun. So if there was one absolute, top-level rule for me, it would be "be excellent to all the other participants". With respect to role play this means:

• I respect the group's desires. Nothing is more annoying than having a group that wants to roll dice, kick down doors and beat up monsters ... and has one player who wants to question the innkeeper about where he sources the spices for his omelettes. Equally annoying is having the one player who keeps interrupting the investigative action to discover who the real owner of the mansion is to go and start shooting people. I haven't seen this mentioned in this thread, but I'd strongly suggest that a good rule would be: Don't be the outlier in the group -- role-play roughly in the amount the rest of the group does.
• Roleplay in a way that is enjoyable to others. This is the opposite of the classic annoyance "But my paladin wouldn't do that" or "my kender couldn't resist that" . You are not the only one playing the game -- you are part of a group. If your roleplaying makes it hard for others to enjoy the game, then stop.
• Share. Roleplaying a loner is fine, assuming you follow the above rules, but it's better to role-play in a way that builds on and supports the roleplaying of others. Think of ways to play roles that makes others' ability to play roles easier and more rewarding.

I've seen others post about how the game is all about their character behaving in the way they naturally would. That's great as a general rule, but these games are about a group -- my feeling is strongly that the roleplaying aspect is subservient to supporting group dynamics. Where they clash, role-playing should come second not first.

In my perfect game, I'd spend maybe 40% of the time roleplaying, 25% in a narrative mode (inventing details and story from an authorial stance), 25% resolving actions and other rule-based stuff and 10% joining in stupid OOC jokes and banter. But I'm happier fitting in with groupthink than making others fit my ideal.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

Well, for me, usually a significant, but not overwhelming one. It's certainly not the be-all and end-all. For me, the reason I play and run RPGs is because they are fun. So if there was one absolute, top-level rule for me, it would be "be excellent to all the other participants". With respect to role play this means:

• I respect the group's desires. Nothing is more annoying than having a group that wants to roll dice, kick down doors and beat up monsters ... and has one player who wants to question the innkeeper about where he sources the spices for his omelettes. Equally annoying is having the one player who keeps interrupting the investigative action to discover who the real owner of the mansion is to go and start shooting people. I haven't seen this mentioned in this thread, but I'd strongly suggest that a good rule would be: Don't be the outlier in the group -- role-play roughly in the amount the rest of the group does.
• Roleplay in a way that is enjoyable to others. This is the opposite of the classic annoyance "But my paladin wouldn't do that" or "my kender couldn't resist that" . You are not the only one playing the game -- you are part of a group. If your roleplaying makes it hard for others to enjoy the game, then stop.
• Share. Roleplaying a loner is fine, assuming you follow the above rules, but it's better to role-play in a way that builds on and supports the roleplaying of others. Think of ways to play roles that makes others' ability to play roles easier and more rewarding.

I've seen others post about how the game is all about their character behaving in the way they naturally would. That's great as a general rule, but these games are about a group -- my feeling is strongly that the roleplaying aspect is subservient to supporting group dynamics. Where they clash, role-playing should come second not first.

In my perfect game, I'd spend maybe 40% of the time roleplaying, 25% in a narrative mode (inventing details and story from an authorial stance), 25% resolving actions and other rule-based stuff and 10% joining in stupid OOC jokes and banter. But I'm happier fitting in with groupthink than making others fit my ideal.

I think I know what you're trying to say, but this to me reads like a defense of conformity, "It's the proud nail that gets hammered down". All of your rules are easiest to follow if you just do the same thing as everyone else, no matter how you feel about it.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

I think I know what you're trying to say, but this to me reads like a defense of conformity, "It's the proud nail that gets hammered down". All of your rules are easiest to follow if you just do the same thing as everyone else, no matter how you feel about it.

I'm assuming most people reading this are not simply trying to do the easiest thing when roleplaying. But if they are novices, a standard model for how to learn anything is the three stage model: (1) start by copying what skilled people are doing (2) understand how to modify the rules when it makes sense (3) invent new rules. So yeah, my advice to a new player would indeed not to try and be a paragon of roleplaying, but instead be a team player and conform rather than annoy.

Once you get skilled and no longer just want to do the easiest thing, you can learn how to role-play or game the way you like within the constraint of not being annoying. And then you get to GM and have the burden and joy of leading the groupthink.

 

[SteveC]

For me, I enjoy getting into a character very much. At the same time, I'm not at all interested in exploring some of the negative connotations from more historical games.

I've played a lot of CoC, and most of those games were set in the 1920s. That's a super interesting historical time, but I'm not interested in exploring the negative aspects of that time from the perspective that was common at the time. I played in a bootlegger campaign, which explored a lot of the Prohibition tropes, and that was fun. I'm not interested at all in exploring casual racism in the way it was present in some places.

I just fit it all into the same issue where people will say "I'm just playing my character," and then go on to do some horrible things. Yeah, it is your character, but we all have to be around it. Similarly, it may have been very socially acceptable to have attitudes that were very different back in the 20s, but that doesn't mean that's the game I want to play.

Similarly, someone who told me that their fantasy campaign was going to be very historically based and accurate to the period would set off some red flags for me.

 

[Theory of Games]

For me, I enjoy getting into a character very much. At the same time, I'm not at all interested in exploring some of the negative connotations from more historical games.

I've played a lot of CoC, and most of those games were set in the 1920s. That's a super interesting historical time, but I'm not interested in exploring the negative aspects of that time from the perspective that was common at the time. I played in a bootlegger campaign, which explored a lot of the Prohibition tropes, and that was fun. I'm not interested at all in exploring casual racism in the way it was present in some places.

I just fit it all into the same issue where people will say "I'm just playing my character," and then go on to do some horrible things. Yeah, it is your character, but we all have to be around it. Similarly, it may have been very socially acceptable to have attitudes that were very different back in the 20s, but that doesn't mean that's the game I want to play.

Similarly, someone who told me that their fantasy campaign was going to be very historically based and accurate to the period would set off some red flags for me.

Yeah that's why I can't play or run CoC. The 20's were super-duper racist and sexist and it was everywhere in the U.S. But I object because ALL of the CoC actual play streams I've watched or listened to had ZERO racism ZERO sexism. How? It's either the 20's or it isn't

Now I am a huge fan of Delta Green. "The conspiracy's real: what are YOU going to do about it?" I love playing PCs with PTSD because they watched a loved one get melted by a demon. What really is insanity anyway? It's cathartic IME to play someone who's falling apart mentally because it really helps me appreciate the world we live in.

 

[SteveC]

Yeah that's why I can't play or run CoC. The 20's were super-duper racist and sexist and it was everywhere in the U.S. But I object because ALL of the CoC actual play streams I've watched or listened to had ZERO racism ZERO sexism. How? It's either the 20's or it isn't

I can definitely see how people might have this exact opinion. What I can say is that when I'm playing CoC I want to explore existential dread and not what was going on in the 20s. I have played a game using the original Deadlands rules that explored issues from the Old West seriously and then introduced horror elements. That was interesting. I don't know if I would be interested in doing that again.

The question is really what is this game about? And you should 100% get on board with that before the game starts. If there's going to be elements of the game that are really distasteful at the present, that's something everyone needs to be okay with. For most people, if you don't handwave things, they're going to be much less interested in most historical games. And that leaves us with a pretty narrow field of games to play.