Roleplaying is a nearly unwinnable style of gaming, first of all. Games end when jobs and relationships interfere, when characters die, or at best – when they retire. Then, we start from zero all over again; a new group, or at least a new character. There's really no way to win, but a thousand ways to lose.
So, why do we play these games if there's no trophy at the end? The road to the game's inevitable demise is simply more enjoyable than the destination. We play for the sense of fellowship among players and characters. We play for the sense of accomplishment from picking that lock, outsmarting those who would hinder us, or outright braining our enemies. We play for the experience of stepping into someone else's shoes, and learning to see the world in another way. We play for the jokes that get told in the middle of the game, and for something to do in between munching on our junk food.
Dungeons & Dragons – indeed, all roleplaying games – are entertainment. It is a thing we do because we enjoy it. We enjoy it simply for the process of doing it, not for the end result.
The process of roleplaying is the true focus of this piece. If there was one right way to roleplay, which would it be? Would we be pointing our fingers and shouting “bang, you're dead”? Would we be coloring numbers onto polyhedrons? Would we be rolling massive amounts of four sided dice, feeding the results into a graphing calculator, and examining the calculator's output against a chart to see if our character could tie his own shoes? If there was one true way to roleplay, then surely we'd all be doing one of the above (or something very similar to it). We're not all tied to any of the above mechanisms, yet countless people can have fun within any one of them.
By now, two points have hopefully been made. The process of roleplaying is the reason for roleplaying. The mechanisms of roleplaying are still, however, secondary to the process.
So, what does it all mean? Where is this going? Put quite simply, the best way to roleplay is to enjoy it.
I've played in games run by freelancers for another major name in the roleplaying industry. For about two years I almost exclusively played the gloomy, angst-based roleplaying titles with somber, dramatically minded players. I've watched in awe as people played online as cat people and cyborgs sitting in a medieval tavern. Those cat people and cyborg types are probably playing the game better than any of the rest of us, for the simple reason that they are able to enjoy the hobby in their own way without feeling upset that anyone else plays the game differently.
We, the dramatics, rules purists, and realists frequently become so focused on our parts to keep a standard of quality in the hobby that we seem to forget to enjoy the game. All of us did enjoy it once, and all of us carry a soft spot in our hearts for those stupid things we did back then which we'd never do now. It's called growth, and it likely means that our previous experiences with the hobby were productive. If we could keep a healthy amount of enjoyment mixed with our newfound maturities, however, then the hobby could only grow and thrive that much more.
To that end, now always seems like a good time to start enjoying the hobby again. If someone else enjoys it differently, then let them. Walk on, and enjoy it in your way. Aim for the utmost realism, strive for angst and social strife, bring your rulebooks and your magnifying glasses to the game to keep yourself on track, or maybe even scratch your whiskers with your robotic tail and meow at the barkeep.
As long as we're enjoying the hobby, we're playing correctly.
Different groups will enjoy different balances of Roleplaying and Gaming - and just like different tastes in music or sports teams this will inevitably cause divisions within the DnD society. These divisions will occur regardless of what is said about them - it's human nature. What we -can- do is try to keep it friendly across the dividing lines.
As a game, it's also a social activity, which means some folks and groups may have more fun with the socializing than with the actual play. This, too, can be a good thing, if everyone's having fun (if people start cracking jokes over a card game, nobody minds).
As roleplaying, there's plenty of theatrical stuff that can get mixed in; again, if it's fun for everyone, fantastic!
All this means is that there is a vast variety of personal tastes and styles in D&D, and that's a good thing. For one, it means that if your own style and preferences change, you won't be without things to enjoy in the hobby, and people to enjoy it with. For another, it means that you'll always have a chance to hear things from another point of view, and you can glean from those ideas whatever you like to improe your own entertainment.
Sure, you can gripe about (and at) the different divisions and groups within the community; you can even get caught up in heated arguments over little things. But why? Wouldn't you rather be having fun? Wouldn't they?
-DREZ
I'm talking about those situations when someone makes a decision because 'that's what my character would do'. When this decision goes against the party it can cause tension or annoyance, which it could be argued is another hook for roleplay. But it can also upset fellow players, especially if it prevents them from being able to (role)play their character.
So there is a point when you may not even want to do something your mean character would do, or certainly it would reduce the enjoyment of a fellow player if you did so. What should your call be on this one? I would argue that you are here as a group to enjoy the game. Sometimes that can take a back seat to roleplaying, which is a bad thing.
Simply having fun does not make you a good roleplayer.
Likewise, the issue of roleplaying is what your primary goal is. There are different systems that are all, in the end, there to do the same thing... set a series of rules that help to make a roleplaying session be run smoothly. The issues of balance are a matter of preference. Some people like myself, who find a type of artist beauty in a system that works flawlessly, will struggle to bludgeon all problems out of an RPG, while others will just play whatever and just make sure their players are having fun. Just because XP increases your character level does not mean that gaining XP is your ultimate goal. If you play games like The Sims or Sim City often, you know what I mean... being the biggest, baddest bruiser on the street is a goal, but not THE goal.
The difference is that chess has a strictly defined set of rules and a goal. That your "Chucky McChuck-Chuck" game happens to use the same pieces is irrelevant.
Actually you have hit the nail on the head
If you are using the same books as roleplaying, but not doing it ‘right’ you are not playing the game. Even if you have fun.
You cannot say that because RPGs do not have rigidly defined rules it is impossible to play them wrong.
But the majority of people who are accused of playing it wrong are not doing so. They are merely playing it differently. Playing a hack and slash game isn't wrong. Playing a Socio-political game in which roleplaying is almost the be-all and end all of the session isn't wrong.
The rules of D&D encompass so many different styles of play that it is hard to imagine one that is "wrong". Especially since the rules give you permission to change them as you see fit, the better to represent the style you are interested in.
If you unwittingly (or deliberately) misinterpret the actual game mechanics, then perhaps you are playing the game wrong. But declaring somebody is playing "wrong" due to differences is style is ludicrous.
Using the chess analogy: Most tournament players (AFAIK) dress conservatively. If I were to turn up to a chess tournament wearing casual clothes and a staw boater with a model of Kermit the frog on top of it, you couldn't accuse me of playing chess the wrong way unless I actually failed to follow the rules of chess. Whose rules do not, IIRC, include a dress code.
(I might be in breach of the rules of the tournament, but that’s another matter entirely - more of a house rule rather than an official chess rule.)
Stembolt:You cannot say that because RPGs do not have rigidly defined rules it is impossible to play them wrong.
The only way to play an RPG wrong is to not enjoy it. The object of playing a game (recreational activities) is to have fun.
Everything else is just details.
I am also asserting that there are an infinite number of ways to roleplay.
I am simply informing people that having fun is NOT the sole qualifier that determines how well you are roleplaying. If that were true I am roleplaying right now as I listen to fatboy slim. Or an hour ago I was the roleplaying master when I watched flcl on TV. And finally let’s not forget that awesome Rping I did when I ate all those peanuts. Give me a hand.
I do not feel the strong need to define roleplaying. I just want to do it, and yes I will have fun. But that does not make it roleplaying.
Anyway...
I must say I completely agree with you. Having fun is not only not the only criteria for whether you are roleplaying, it is not even a criteria for whether or not you are roleplaying. Roleplaying well, ditto. I may mastermind the systematic destruction of a player's character because he defied his own god, and he exquisitely twist and squirm as he tries to escape what's coming to him. We both become sadder and sterner as the deadly game continues but in the end, of course, he loses. We never slipped out of character, we were inventive and precise in our enactment, surely that is roleplaying well. We didn't necessarily have any fun. You may say that afterwards there are rewards - you have built a depth of character history and world events that will lead to pleasure in the long run. Yes, but right then it was no fun. Does that mean that I only resume roleplaying after I begin to reap the rewards of our effective characterisations?
I reiterate: staying in character, being inventive and precise. That is roleplaying well. If your character is always enacted in the third person and never speaks through your mouth, you are roleplaying well if you stay in that. Many characters are played well not by their witty banter but their heroic dilligence or their unconditional sacrifice in combat. Simply being engaged in the game world to the point that you correctly understand your character's position within it is roleplaying well. Anything less than this is still roleplaying - as you are being Max the Cleric instead of David the Engineer. But if you can't remember whether you're inside a dungeon or in the middle of a cloud city (and by the way I have NEVER seen any min/maxer guilty of this; it's in their best interests to correctly understand the terrain conditions around them), you're not roleplaying well.
As long as we're enjoying the hobby, we're playing correctly.
He is correct.
There are some who argue that if you're not playing D&D by the core rulebooks, supplement books, and official errata/FAQ, you're not playing it correctly.
They are also correct; they just have a different definition of what it means to "play correctly." (And frankly, they probably feel very strongly that theirs is the correct one.)
It will be of no use to anyone to read a heated discussion on the definition of "play correctly," so perhaps we can recast the whole argument.
How's this:
"If you and your group are having fun playing, don't worry about whether other people think you're playing correctly."
(The only real exception to this rule is if you were to play in an official RPGA "Living" campaign or attend GenCon or another RPGA convention, where there are sure to be more strict definitions of "playing correctly.")
So, if you've found a compatible group who plays D&D like a miniatures game and never attempt to roleplay so much as ordering a drink at the tavern, and you enjoy this style of play, you're doing something right!
If your group can go three sessions without rolling a single die, but instead spends hours roleplaying out a torrid affair between two PC's, and you enjoy this style of play, you're doing something right!
If your group has eliminated alignment and attacks of opportunity, stuck with the 3.0 haste spell and 1hr/level buff durations, has never met an NPC you didn't either rob blind or kill, have the Tarrasque as a pet, have slain gods, and are left wondering what comes after the Epic Level Handbook, and you enjoy this style of play, you're doing something right!
And when you inevitably find a group, or your group finds a new player, who simply doesn't like to play the same way you play, then don't waste energy trying to convert them or worse, try to tell them how they're doing it all wrong. Life is too short.
Find people who play the game the way you like to play it, and then have fun with them.
[url=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Role-playing]Dictionary.com[/url:
Definition or Role Playing:
1. Psychology. A therapeutic technique, designed to reduce conflict in social situations, in which participants act out particular behavioral roles in order to expand their awareness of differing points of view.
2. An instance or situation in which one deliberately acts out or assumes a particular character or role.
Emphasis, mine. So, as I explained before, the object of a game (with open ended-rules) is to have fun. Role-playing is the action of playing another character/personality in some shape. The game (D&D in this case) requires ye to take up the role of someone else, even if it is only in the details (there aren't many of us that can claim to weld a sword, wear armor, or cast spells). Thus, my conclusion stands:
There is no wrong way to roleplay if everyone has fun.
Now, it is entirely possible to get so wrapped up in the rules that the game ceases to be fun, if that happens, I'd have to say you're not playing the game right.
But, I still think you're dreamy.
-Desdan
Scenario 1:
Player 1: Well, I'm glad I found your ad looking for extra roleplayer gamer on the internet. I made my character and now I'm ready.
GM: No problem. We're needing someone to fill into our group. Let's start. You walk down the alley and run into an assailant. Break out you percentile dice and roll to see if you hit.
Player 1: Don't you mean my 20-sider?
GM: Nope, your percentiles.
Player 1: By the way, could you show me in your rules where it says that percentiles are rolled for combat?
* GM pulls out book. It has Rolemaster written across the top of the book*
Player 1: Hey, I thought that we're playing Dungeons and Dragons?
GM: Nah, we're playing Rolemaster. We don't like Dungeons and Dragons. But why worry - the important this is that we're roleplaying, so it's all good.
The above scenario highlights the reason why people put the game they're playing and the edition they're playing in their posts on the classified board.
Scenario 2:
GM: Well, how did you enjoy the campaign tonight?
Player 1: Well, let's see - the first level party consisting cleric, fighter, rogue, and mage wandered among a bar and found out about adventure in the northern mountains. Once they made it to the mountains, they encountered a Great Wyrm Red Dragon. The cleric, rogue, and mage ran in fear once they saw the dragon. Since the dragon beat me on initiative, the dragon turned me into instant charcoal with his breath weapon. The following rounds consisted of the dragon picking off the rest of the party as they were fleeing. By the way, have you ever heard of the term Challenge Rating?
GM: Bah. Everybody was having fun roleplaying in the bar. As long as we're roleplaying, it's all good. By the way, you're going to be here next week to continue the campaign, right?
Player 1: Uhm .. yeah, sure ...
I think that I made my point. Really, the rule are needed as a foundation before you even can consider roleplaying. Otherwise, all you're going to left with are a bunch of disappointed players and DMs.
And in some way history backs me up. E Gary Gygax notes that one reason why he developed 1st edition AD&D was that there were D&D groups at Standford that wouldn't even talk to one another due to the openness of the original rules. Each group held to their belief that there's was the correct rules for D&D. Thus, openness is not always a good thing.
There is no wrong way to roleplay if everyone has fun.
Well this point is pretty trivial. It assumes that you are roleplaying to begin with. The unsaid point is “if you are roleplaying, there is no wrong way to roleplay if everyone has fun.”
Otherwise the reverse would be true “having fun is good roleplaying.” And today I had fun sitting on a couch and listening to bugs and birds.
Definition or Role Playing:
The thing is this is the definition of roleplaying, in the dictionary. It is not the definition of “playing a roleplaying game.” Similarly if you wanted to define playing chess” you do not look to the definition of “playing.” It is a step in the right direction but not the ending.
Roleplaying is generally a leisure activity. Very few of us are relying on our roleplaying hobby to pay the bills, or to keep vicous wolves from tearing us apart (although I've played with peoplelike that ;) ).
Almost by definition, we pursue leisure activities to have fun.
It therefore stands to reason that the best way for us to play it is the way that we enjoy most.
It may not result in the best *roleplaying*, but it certainly sounds like the best way to play a roleplaying game. When the only thing at stake is entertainment, whats the point of a method-acting performance that would get you into the Royal Shakespear company unless you are enjoying it, too?
The only corallary I would add is that you should try to make the game as fun for all the other players as it is for you - after all, they are your friends, aren't they?