| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1RUMPLESTIXNov 11, 2009 18:32:26 | This kind of came up in another thread and I am curious what people think. I think that roleplaying is improvisational acting. Others seem to believe that if you act out what the dice say then you are roleplaying. They think that rolls for success should be done before players acting out the character's part in a skill challenge so that they can act appropriately according to the roll made. To me that is acting according to a script decided by the roll rather than acting according to the role created. Nothing wrong with it if that is how people want to play and have fun with but I believe it is inappropriate to call that roleplaying. I see it as following a script. So, do you think that roleplaying should be defined as being improvisational? |
| #2greygrendelNov 11, 2009 19:17:22 | This kind of came up in another thread and I am curious what people think. I think that roleplaying is improvisational acting. Others seem to believe that if you act out what the dice say then you are roleplaying. They think that rolls for success should be done before players acting out the character's part in a skill challenge so that they can act appropriately according to the roll made. To me that is acting according to a script decided by the roll rather than acting according to the role created. Nothing wrong with it if that is how people want to play and have fun with but I believe it is inappropriate to call that roleplaying. I see it as following a script. So, do you think that roleplaying should be defined as being improvisational? Not entirely no. Roleplaying is...wait for it...playing a role. Sure a lot of it may be improv and how one relates to othe PCs, NPCs and situations is my definition of RP. However, if you're intimidating someone, doing a bang up job and then bone the roll that takes away a lot of the immersion. Sure a good DM may not require a roll. but many do. I think that as long as you're embodying your character, thinking as Frank the Fighter or Tim the Wizard and making decision as they would, then you're roleplaying. The Amber Diceless RPG has some wonderful questions to get players to answer to help develop characters beyond the normal (my personal favorite has always been, "How does your character do the laundry"). |
| #3RUMPLESTIXNov 11, 2009 19:25:34 | Thanks for the response. But, I have a question about this:
But, if the DM requires you to make a roll despite portraying an excellent intimiadation and you bone the roll how would it take away from the immersion. Couldn't it just be that the opponent dug in and found something that no one suspected he had? The DM: The goblin looks shaken for a split second and then its gaze hardens. "Die dwarf scum!" it screams as it charges. Also, the DM can also start with his head cowered in fear and then raise up tall as he responds to add to the effect. How does that kill the immersion? |
| #4whtetygerNov 11, 2009 20:48:06 | Sure you were roleplaying an awesome job of intimidation. Is your character trained? What is their CHA? Just because you are good at something does not mean your character is. If you did not take stats and some randomness included then who would train social skills? If I can act well then I could rely on MY skill and not my characters. Having dice involved gets around this. If someone does a great job ooh circumstance bonus time and give em a +2 to the roll. Someone did a terrible job -2. |
| #5RUMPLESTIXNov 11, 2009 21:18:28 | Sure you were roleplaying an awesome job of intimidation. Is your character trained? What is their CHA? Just because you are good at something does not mean your character is. If you did not take stats and some randomness included then who would train social skills? But, back to the original question. :-) What is roleplaying? Is it improvisational acting? I see nothing wrong with rolling first and then acting according to whether or not you succeed but is that roleplaying. I see that as acting on a script while still playing a game but would thus not be roleplaying because it is not improvisational. Do you think that the "roleplaying" should be done before the success of the rroll is known for it to be roleplaying as opposed to rollplaying (what I think is acting from a script)? |
| #6whtetygerNov 11, 2009 22:10:57 | Sure you were roleplaying an awesome job of intimidation. Is your character trained? What is their CHA? Just because you are good at something does not mean your character is. If you did not take stats and some randomness included then who would train social skills? - An instance or situation in which one deliberately acts out or assumes a particular character or role. I can see the benefits of rolling to see how well one did and then acting out that situation. It is not something I or groups I have been in normally do it but it would be an interesting method to handle it. You can say that role playing is like improvisational acting. It is a good comparison. When I have tried to explain LARPing in the past I normally say its a group that does improvisational acting with some rules. |
| #7NerpherderNov 11, 2009 22:20:46 | You can improv off a script; just watch the deleted/extended/unused scenes from any Will Ferrell, Jim Carrey, or Vince Vaughn movie.
The two are not mutually exclusive, you can roll then improv the result, one of my old groups had a very charismatic character when the player rolled a 1 on the check he improv'ed a really good accidental insult to the queen. Had made his big charismatic speech then rolled a one, it would have been a big let down, instead of a line that at the time we used almost daily.
-Nerp |
| #8brassbaboonNov 11, 2009 23:01:36 | I'm not going to try to define role playing in a way that any three people might agree with, because I doubt an effort to do so would be successful. There are too many interpretations. So instead I'll try to address role playing as it relates to D&D. First of all I don't consider it "role playing" to describe some dramatic cinematically elaborate effort that a character attempts. "I whip out my flaming bastard sword and dive off the wall driving the blade into the dragon's snout!" That's not the sort of thing I provide role playing XP for. That's the easy stuff. It's also not role playing in an RPG sense to have the player do things the character could not really pull off. Having Dustin Hoffman make a bluff attempt is a lot different from having Dustin's doofus fighter make the same attempt. That's why the game has skills and dice, because it's really NOT THE PLAYER who is making the attempt, it is the character. I reward role playing in the game when the player does something that is clearly based on an in-depth knowledge of the character's backstory, motivations and personality in ways that demonstrate that the player is making every effort to THINK and REASON like their character would, instead of the way THEY would, usually meaning in ways that do not adhere to the standard class or race stereotypes. Barbarians who leap into battle with a thunderous war cry and a mighty cut with their blade don't get much role playing reward from me. That's just too easy. Same for the paladin who offers to sacrifice themselves to save the party. However, the ranger who pauses in battle to light a new cigar because he just doesn't feel right fighting without a lit cigar, that would probably get some reward. Or the paladin who pauses to pray over every fallen enemy. Or the barbarian who collects a finger from every slain foe and turns them into necklaces... Role playing in an RPG is, to me, creating unique and interesting characters who have some goal in their lives beyond optimizing their DPR and moving on to the next encounter. That usually means developing some quirk or habit that the party (and the players) come to associate with that character. Something memorable. Beleive me, a ranger using a minor action to light a new cigar in the middle of a fight gets the attention of the players. A good DM will pick up on these things. "The ogre's club whistles past your face, narrowly missing you, but knocking the cigar out of your mouth and reducing it to shreds of tobacco." Oh, crap, now I gotta light a new cigar... My oldest character, a wizard initially created in 2e, is insane, but he is insane in a specific manner. That insanity leads him to do things that don't make sense except to him. Playing him requires a lot of thought and effort or else he becomes just another wizard. And to me that's the whole point of the role-playing aspect of the game. He's so NOT "just another wizard." He's unique and memorable. People who play with him remember him. |
| #9slobo777aNov 12, 2009 4:47:43 | I don't like to simply state "Roleplaying = Acting" (of any sort). Because acting is hard. Improv acting of actual dialog that is also entertaining is nigh impossible without years of pratice. I think that declaring "RP = acting" is off-putting to new players who want to have a go. But yes, there needs to be at least a little acting. Method acting, and Improv acting are the two approaches that seem to gel the most with RPGs for me. Just don't ask me to speak in character all the time, and act out every conversation. |
| #10DanTrackerNov 12, 2009 6:21:36 | i find it interest9ng that twice the OP has brought up, do you roleplay as the dice dictate, or roleplay then figure out how that fits the dice later? sometimes i roll first then decide what to do with that. that can be an effective way of saying, "i want to do this action, but the dice rolls are coming out badly, so i obviously decide it is best not to engage in such." sometimes i make my in-character action then roll to see how that turns out. both create a avalid form of watching the dice while still injecting lots of personality to the game. a few bad rolls doesn't absolutely lead to failure. as a DM, in non-combat encounters, the players have to do some of the talking in-character. jst saying, "i roll a 19 on diplomacy to tell him that we are not criminals." is not as effective as knowing what the PC says in discussion and then see how delicately it was presented. since intimidate was mentioned, that is a point where success or failure can be more touchy. failing to fully cow an NPC with intimidate could make them very angry and insulted. but, being trained and rolling high could turn, "do this for us or we'll open your entrails into the street." by the player into, "you are a key element of our effort, if you aren't willing to help us we simply can ensure your safety in this town." as a DM, i have to listen for clues of how the behavior pans out from the players talking in-character. using the right phrases can overthrow a bad dice roll at my table. if they notice things that matter or touch on topics that will sway an NPC, that significantly adds to the overall dice roll. |
| #11brassbaboonNov 12, 2009 11:08:04 | As a DM if I am looking for a character to mention a specific thing (such as the name of the Lord who sent them on a task) while attempting to intimidate, I generally tend to make that a situational modifier on the intimidate roll. So if the player says "I attempt to intimidate the guard" I'll just say "OK, roll." But if they say "I tell the guard: 'Look buddy, if you don't do what I need, then Lord AntsyPants is going to hear about it, and he'll want to know who it was who refused to admit his personal envoy, what's your name and rank?!" That would gain at least a +2 to the roll. If the player had his character pull out a signed document with the Lord's obvious seal on it, that would be a +5 or so. What I would try not to do is modify the roll based on how well the PLAYER acted. That's really immaterial to the character's situation. I admit there's some gray area here, and the player has to remember things the character needs to know, but mostly I try to have the character's abilities actually mean something when attempting to use in game skills. |
| #12melloredNov 12, 2009 11:58:28 | I have a problem with requiring people to act things out. It would be like saying that a you have to do the carnival hammer game every time you're barbarian attacks, and having to ring the bell in order to hit. Not that i have noting against acting things out, as it adds to the game and it should be encouraged, but penalizing (and giving bonuses) to in game actions, because of real life skills is a bad thing. The idea is that you're playing someone else, someone else with abilities (like Cha) that you may, or may not have. Thus a person who is tone def, and has tourette should be able to play an elegant singing bard just as well as an opera singer. I'm talking of D&D in particular, i can certainly see acting ability come into play alot more in other RPG's, and strength and dex would come into play alot more if larping. |
| #13tomcardinNov 12, 2009 13:18:55 | I think acting out is optional. What is important to me about roleplaying is making decision and taking actions as your character would, not as you would. Thats the simplest I can put it...it has nothing to do with acting skills or even being able to talk in a different voice, those are added fluff. For me, as a player, the challenge is thinking and acting like a person who is MORE capable and intelligent, MORE charming and eloquent than YOU are. This is also where so much of the fun can be and honestly where personal growth can occur. I have seen people come out of their shells and break their own personal barriers time and time again in the course of roleplaying - in a good way. For me, as a DM, the challenge is breathing life into my world as the players experience it. Compartmentalizing my NPC's so that they each follow their own motivations and are not blind to how the actions of the PCs influence their lives. If a player acts the role well in the course of a roleplaying skill challenge yet still flubs the die role that's ok. The NPC simply saw something in his eyes that just made him not believe it - tell me it has not happened to you? And the same is true for the poorly acted skill challenge that results in a dynamite die role...This NPC knew where you were coming from, he feels he has been there before himself so he can emphasis and believe in the PC. - Just because someone you spoke with stammered or misspoke or even forgot your name may not automatically make make you file them away in the loser bin. |
| #14RUMPLESTIXNov 12, 2009 13:27:41 | Now, to clarify, my question has absolutely nothing to do with giving or not giving out bonuses or extra experience. My personal take with 4th is to sometimes give bonus XP for individual cool actions and add it to the total for everyone without necessarily saying where it came from. This is especially true if it furthers the adventure or is just something that makes everyone have fun. In the latter I usually do say where it came from so that people realize that it is a win win situation for making everyone smile, laugh, and have a good time. I also like to make a point of remembering a sig that I saw someone have at one time: "A bad roleplayer can ruin a game. A good roleplayer can ruin a game in character". So, I think that it is (occasionally) important to watch the extent of our roleplaying and see that it does not get in the way. There have been times playing when I come to an impasse with the introduction of a new player or character for a deceased player. On the one habd I want to roleplay my character who would be incredibly wary and probably not just let the newbie join. I have played in groups where this has actually led to combat and sometimes the killing of the new party member to be. (Most recent being nearly killing the new PCs when playing Ravenloft within the Iron Kingdoms setting.) On the other hand, when a player has been sitting and waiting for a chance to play I don't want to make things too difficult or impossible for said character to join. With this thread I am specifically curious as to what is and is not considered roleplaying by everyone else. I personally believe there are many aspects and styles to playing the game which are not roleplaying but are OK none the less. But, I have another related question. I have seen it stated that roleplaying is also playing the role of the character within the group as defined by the PHB. So, if your character is a leader as defined in the tactical sense within the PHB (buffs and heals...) then some have stated they consider it roleplaying to act accordingly. I believe that roleplaying in combat is very possible but to me that is not actually roleplaying because it is a mechanical role defined by the class chosen rather than a role created through the actions and background of the character. So, what does everyone else think? I was ninja'd by TomCardin but pretty much agree. |
| #15brassbaboonNov 12, 2009 13:44:24 | Now, to clarify, my question has absolutely nothing to do with giving or not giving out bonuses or extra experience. My personal take with 4th is to sometimes give bonus XP for individual cool actions and add it to the total for everyone without necessarily saying where it came from. This is especially true if it furthers the adventure or is just something that makes everyone have fun. In the latter I usually do say where it came from so that people realize that it is a win win situation for making everyone smile, laugh, and have a good time. Yeah, I give extra XP for different reasons, I have an "aweseomeness" reward that is given out for an action that is just totally frickin' awesome. I've given XP for making a session fun just by making everyone laugh, etc. I also like to make a point of remembering a sig that I saw someone have at one time: "A bad roleplayer can ruin a game. A good roleplayer can ruin a game in character". So, I think that it is (occasionally) important to watch the extent of our roleplaying and see that it does not get in the way. There have been times playing when I come to an impasse with the introduction of a new player or character for a deceased player. On the one habd I want to roleplay my character who would be incredibly wary and probably not just let the newbie join. I have played in groups where this has actually led to combat and sometimes the killing of the new party member to be. (Most recent being nearly killing the new PCs when playing Ravenloft within the Iron Kingdoms setting.) On the other hand, when a player has been sitting and waiting for a chance to play I don't want to make things too difficult or impossible for said character to join. Sure, anything can be overdone. Anyone who is using role play in an RPG to channel their inner Laurence Olivier needs to be smacked down. Roleplaying the introduction of new characters is actually one area that I, as a DM, am deliberately lax and allow just about any crazy story to be told. It's just not worth it to turn the new character introduction into a major issue with the potential for PC on PC combat. This is one time I metagame shamelessly. With this thread I am specifically curious as to what is and is not considered roleplaying by everyone else. I personally believe there are many aspects and styles to playing the game which are not roleplaying but are OK none the less. Well, I already described what I consider to be role playing. Again, the short version is, role playing in an RPG is when the player follows a consistent vision of the beliefs, motivations and personality of a character in ways that make that character memorable and unique to the group. But, I have another related question. I have seen it stated that roleplaying is also playing the role of the character within the group as defined by the PHB. So, if your character is a leader as defined in the tactical sense within the PHB (buffs and heals...) then some have stated they consider it roleplaying to act accordingly. I believe that roleplaying in combat is very possible but to me that is not actually roleplaying because it is a mechanical role defined by the class chosen rather than a role created through the actions and background of the character. I don't see playing the "role" of striker or defender as "role playing". I consider that to be more following the tactical mechanics of the game. HOW the character performs its "role" as "striker" or "leader" is more important from a role-playing perspective than WHAT it is doing. A fighter who unleashes a blue streak of profane taunting as he executes "come and get it" is role playing, a fighter who says "I use my 'come and get it' ability" is not. |
| #16CoarseDragonNov 12, 2009 17:05:49 | What if I said the players don't roll the dice for a skill challenge I do [the DM]. I lay down the challenge, i.e. the Mayor needs you to get a rich guy to pay his taxes. The players act out their scene in their own way with their characters making the choices. In the background I decide how well they did (I know their skills afterall). Roleplaying is part improvisation based on what is happening at the time and the other part of roleplaying is knowing your character and how that persona would react in a given situation. A roleplaying game rewards players for choices that are consistent with their character. By not rolling dice the players roleplay and thus get rewarded for how they roleplay their character. |
| #17brassbaboonNov 12, 2009 17:27:05 |
Sure, do what you think best. You're the DM. I wouldn't do that, Players enjoy rolling their own dice, and I try to let them roll as much as possible. |
| #18CoarseDragonNov 12, 2009 17:43:08 |
I don't do that all the time (in fact pretty rare (note the what if part)) but what I do is not the point. What roleplaying is is the point of this thread and that is my idea of roleplaying. Whether you use dice or not it is how the players react in character to the scene presented that defines roleplaying and that changes all the time. |
| #19brassbaboonNov 12, 2009 18:40:54 |
Sure, I agree with that, but to me from a pure role playing perspective it doesn't matter who rolls the dice. If the die roll is successful, the player should role play success, if not, then they should role play failure. Doesn't matter who rolls the dice. The only time I roll for a player is for anything that the Player should not know the result. |
| #20oxybeNov 12, 2009 20:44:35 | i don't try to define it in any particular way other then "create a character and play that role". the style, tone, "in character"-ness, ect... is entirely up to the player/gm & the group to define and find their own comfort level as a whole, that if i try to define it right now i would probably be spitting in the face of my monday group and my wednesday group. |
| #21CentauriNov 13, 2009 14:12:19 | It's generally so hard to get people to roleplay that I encourage anything anyone does that even remotely resembles or can be justified as playing a role. Heck, even just embarking on an adventure in a dangerous world rather than sitting at home and cowering in fear is roleplaying. Any description they provide is roleplaying. Faithfully adhering to their combat role is roleplaying - but blatantly disregarding their role can be too. There's no real advantage I can see to setting a firm definition for roleplaying. |
| #22CaericNov 14, 2009 2:03:18 | Roleplaying is a loose word, defined at least by dictionary.com as "to assume the attitudes, actions, and discourse of (another), esp. in a make-believe situation in an effort to understand a differing point of view or social interaction." In the context of Dungeons & Dragons and other RPGs, roleplaying leans away from that motive. It is, as was stated, improvisational acting (and stems from the desire to 'play pretend,' as children do often). It is the assumption of attitudes, actions and discourse of a likely fictitious character (though not necessarily), in a likely make-believe situation (though not necessarily) in an effort to enjoy it for its own sake. That's all there is to it. The dice don't enter in to the definition of roleplaying. |
| #23johnnyslickNov 14, 2009 21:08:28 |
This is probably going to be crazy talk for some, but even in situations where I don't necessarily want the characters to know the result, I let them roll for it. I try to cultivate an environment where players appreciate dramatic irony - the idea that they know something that their characters do not. Now, sometimes I'll conceal the irony by having people make Perception and Insight checks for no particular reason so that they don't pull out their swords every time I ask them (actually, if they do that, I have a little habit of making them make a Perception check in the middle of a city and freaking out the populace because they heard a twig snap. It's called post-traumatic stress disorder and the players have it). Beyond that, I like players to remain mainly in character and react to scenes as their characters would. It's not coincidence that a lot of people play characters with personality traits similar to their own. The only real *bad* RPing to me are anachronisms, blatanty OOC conversations... that sort of thing. If a character RPs their way into a hole they can't dig out of - for example, their character is about to come to blows with another character in the group - that's when I step out of the game for a second and ask each player how their character is going to resolve this situation without blowing up the game. |
| #24johnnyslickNov 14, 2009 21:11:26 | It's generally so hard to get people to roleplay that I encourage anything anyone does that even remotely resembles or can be justified as playing a role. Heck, even just embarking on an adventure in a dangerous world rather than sitting at home and cowering in fear is roleplaying. Any description they provide is roleplaying. Faithfully adhering to their combat role is roleplaying - but blatantly disregarding their role can be too. There's no real advantage I can see to setting a firm definition for roleplaying. One key to getting people to break out of their shell is that you as the DM need to get very, um, silly. There's no better way to put it. Adopt some silly voices, come up with a catch-phrase for each NPC you use and build the way they talk around that, make sure your monsters aren't just walking up to people and hitting them, that sort of thing. If you're in a non-RPing group, this is going to be really, really tough for a couple session. After a little bit, though, you reach the point where the players, instead of saying, "I'm going to talk to this guy about X", say, "Okay, Dragontongue Forkbeard, what say you about X?". That's when the real fun starts IMO. |
| #25darksaviorNov 15, 2009 5:35:56 | This kind of came up in another thread and I am curious what people think. I think that roleplaying is improvisational acting. Others seem to believe that if you act out what the dice say then you are roleplaying. They think that rolls for success should be done before players acting out the character's part in a skill challenge so that they can act appropriately according to the roll made. To me that is acting according to a script decided by the roll rather than acting according to the role created. Nothing wrong with it if that is how people want to play and have fun with but I believe it is inappropriate to call that roleplaying. I see it as following a script. So, do you think that roleplaying should be defined as being improvisational? Roleplaying is playing a role, improvisational or following a script. The skills on a character sheet represent the character's abilities not your own. Also it is pretty spontaneous nonetheless if you have to act out the results of the roll, I mean you need to be ready to handle succeeding or failing kind of on the fly. I think either straight acting out your role, or using the skills as a guideline for the acting is fine. The only time I dislike the social skills is when they are used entirely in lieu of any dialoging, acting, or otherwise socially interacting. I don't see a point to bothering with PnP gaming in that situation. But that's just my opinion. |
| #26aesclealmNov 15, 2009 9:45:01 | i find it interest9ng that twice the OP has brought up, do you roleplay as the dice dictate, or roleplay then figure out how that fits the dice later? That seems like a strange question to ask - having watched a fair number of players over the years roleplaying happens both before and after the die roll. Someone rollplays getting into something that requires a roll to resolve, makes the roll and roleplays the effects. With skill challenges (or whatever the game you're playing calls it's conflict resolution mechanic) this tends to happen around every role and around the skill challenge as a whole. Cheers, Ash |
| #27SvempaNov 15, 2009 10:05:17 | Nothing wrong with it if that is how people want to play and have fun with but I believe it is inappropriate to call that roleplaying. I see it as following a script. So, do you think that roleplaying should be defined as being improvisational? No. The way I see it, you are confusing two different things. I believe the word roleplaying is often used by people who are into improvised theatre (acting) but that is something quite different from a roleplaying game like D&D. It was a miniature game to begin with. Even from the beginning for me, the roleplaying aspect was more about trying to imagine the world and the place of the characters in it, but the game itself was like a fantasy simulation even if you didn't use minis. It was not theatre. |