How to Roleplay

[Knaight]

I'm going to edit the below into an enumerated list, for clarity.

Both terms mean basically the same thing!

1) They mean "To play, you can't just say a type of character you'd like, you have to make a back-story and a build"!

2) They mean having to pay attention to "stats" and "mods" instead of deciding when to use a bag of flour, a flask of oil, or a ten foot pole!

3) They mean being told to make a "Gish" whatever that's supposed to be!

4) The mean there's little description of the environment for my character to interact with, just a conga-line of combat with powers and rules to memorize!

5) They mean a lot of time is spent talking to each other in-character instead of exploring the setting.

6) They mean instead of saying what my PC see's and hears the GM monologues for a long time about the history of the continent of What's-it, and how it invaded by the Whom-evers who worship the gods of What-now

7) They mean when another players character is injured, my character isn't supposed to run to them unless some ability or other is on my character record sheet.

8) It means instead of thinking about what I or the character I'm trying to play would do in the situation described, I have to cite rules and stats.

9) It means instead of being asked "What do you do?" the GM asks "What do you roll for?"
It means my old best friend and DM died years ago, and my now being told again and again "You don't do it right"! Both "role-playing" and "roll-playing" mean my play-style is obsolete, and character creation that used to take at most ten minutes now takes at least an hour, and if I want to play I have to think of "back-stories" and "builds".

Basically none of this is intrinsic to roleplaying. Going down the list:

1) Roleplaying doesn't really need a backstory, just a character personality. As for builds, that's more a matter of mechanical complexity than anything else.

2) This definitely has nothing to do with roleplaying.

3) This reflects downright bad player/GM habits of telling other people what characters to make, in this case pushing a particular warrior/mage archetype.

4) Lack of description is just a bad GM habit.

5) This at least does relate to roleplaying, though I'd argue that at that point you're exploring the setting by exploring the people who live in it.

6) Again this is a bad GM habit, here one of unelegant info dumping that gets in the way of the present.

7) This is a mechanical quirk of the system, and one that's been in D&D for a while. The whole idea of the effective dedicated healer pushes this, as does the way the wound system works.

8) This definitely has nothing to do with roleplaying.

9) This is another aspect of mechanical complexity, a side effect of heavier systems and the cultures they bring.

Seriously, if you find yourself in Northern Colorado on a Thursday evening hit me up. I'll probably be running an invite-only one shot in a modern style that does none of these things, and you can consider this an invite.

[WindStruck]

They are absolutely not the same thing.

Anything that has to do with mechanics, builds, or any other technical stuff involving rolls is with game systems themselves. Pretty much all games use dice except for pure storytelling freeform games.

The numbers are simply there to quantify how good your character is at doing something. That way, if another actor were to oppose him or her, the two of you can resolve the issue with a dice roll, rather than an argument irl, or an outlandish fight scene where neither opponent wants to lose. Eventually, someone will have to concede, or they both agree on a draw. Using dice, plus modifiers, we have a neutral arbiter.

Even still, dice rolls are explicitly stated to be used for resolving an unknown outcome. They can take the guesswork out of roleplaying, because if your character isn't too great at picking locks, you don't have to decide when to randomly fail or not. The system decides for you.

Aside from that, it has nothing to do with roleplaying. Everything else is up to you and how you envisioned your character.

[2D8HP]

2D8 what you're describing to me is a focus on story-characters vs build-characters, instead of just pretending to 'be' as the character in the environment and interact with....

To me "role-playing" and "roll-playing" are two sides of the same coin, and the "vs" between the "optimizers" and "method actors" isn't a debate I'm interested in, because emphasis on either and/or both gets in the way of something that I want more of in what have become to be called "role-playing games": The sense of exploring a rich and detailed world (not an "Empty Room" or its near twin the "passive-aggressive railroad").

As to the "If your just 'roll-playing' it's just a board game" line, have you seen boardgames lately? They're richer with more actual meaningful decisions and world detail than most RPG sessions now!

From when I was on the other side of the screen, I know that much of that detail of those increasingly rare good "RPG" sessions is often improvised on the fly as the much decried "illusionism", and I don't care!

I want GM's to make that effort of some illusionism again, instead of just setting up drawing rooms for a few players to monologue their PC's back-stories to each other, and I want more to that illusion than endless fights!

Maybe have some NPC's other than antagonists and patrons/questgivers again?

....none of this is intrinsic to roleplaying...

In my experience those things are so endemic to how what are called "role-playing games" are played that they are the definition, and the few rare exceptions should be called something else, which is why I suggest dusting off a label from the late 1970's and early 80's: "Adventure Game"

They didn't used to be, and sometimes there's a few rare sessions where they aren't now, but for the most part?

Just as in the early 1990's when I walked out of the hobby (for the record it was other "RPG's" that were not D&D then that I last played then, I know it's hard to believe, but back then D&D games were rarer to find than other games), and today when it's hard to find anything played besides D&D and Pathfinder, it's mostly what I call "Empty Rooms" or "Locked into Lameness arenas" that I see.

...Seriously, if you find yourself in Northern Colorado on a Thursday evening hit me up. I'll probably be running an invite-only one shot in a modern style that does none of these things, and you can consider this an invite.

Wow!

That's really kind, thank you!

They are absolutely not the same thing.

Are you sure?

Because both give me that "Why bother" feeling, as both involve a mute world besides the PC's.

What would bring back the Adventure is:

NPC's who talk more than a few words.

Descriptions of the environment besides "Duchess and Duke blah-di-blah say go fight what's-it for inadequately-explained reasons that the PC's just do because heroes", and "You see the what's-its, and they attack".

Challenges other than combat, maybe walls to climb? Traps to avoid? People to find? A chase?

Combat that's quick and that's deadly for the PC's as well as the antagonists, so it's something that you try to avoid, or use tactics, not "powers" to survive.

....Aside from that, it has nothing to do with roleplaying. Everything else is up to you and how you envisioned your character.

I'd like to envision my character as someone exploring and interacting with a world beyond voicing their inner deals or in endless riskless combat.

In short, I want a to explore a world not a role, and I want more options than "I roll to attack".

[PanosIs]

To me "role-playing" and "roll-playing" are two sides of the same coin, and the "vs" between the "optimizers" and "method actors" isn't a debate I'm interested in, because emphasis on either and/or both gets in the way of something that I want more of in what have become to be called "role-playing games": The sense of exploring a rich and detailed world (not an "Empty Room" or its near twin the "passive-aggressive railroad").

I totally understand where you're coming from, 2D8HP. Although in my case, I have some instinct saying that all these things are fine.

I suppose I'm one of those sorta-rare people that very much enjoy both mechanical depth, character depth and story depth, so I want my games to have each of those things. Although I'll agree with you that the most enticing part of (at least being a player) in an RPG is exploring the setting.

I like it when my players are arguing with each other about what to do next because they have conflicting motivations. I like it when their characters are trying to fight their way through a combat or noncombat obstacle using all their (mechanical or otherwise) abilities. And I like it when they discover x or y piece of lore, or that the old giant ruins they passed by a couple of sessions ago are now using to forge weapons or whatelse.

The experiences that you are describing, at least from what I infer, have to do more with style of play rather than an intrinsic feature of roleplaying games today. And it is true that good games are hard to come by. From my experience though, there are plenty of players and/or DMs that appreciate that style of play, the one that's focused on exploration of a setting rather than a character or a set of mechanics. Of course though, these things meld together.

From when I was on the other side of the screen, I know that much of that detail of those increasingly rare good "RPG" sessions is often improvised on the fly as the much decried "illusionism", and I don't care!

I want GM's to make that effort of some illusionism again, instead of just setting up drawing rooms for a few players to monologue their PC's back-stories to each other, and I want more to that illusion than endless fights!

Is illusionism decried? I may have skewed opinions of what constitutes illusionism (My lurking in online fora is limited). But I'm pretty sure that any sane game master with experience under his belt will be skilled in improvisations and narrative tricks.

I'd like to envision my character as someone exploring and interacting with a world beyond voicing their inner deals or in endless riskless combat.

In short, I want a to explore a world not a role, and I want more options than "I roll to attack".

In the end it all has to do with different styles of play. And one way or another the later trend in RPGs for good or for bad is a big focus in characters and backstories and motivations. And that can be observed in many recent games. Vampire (And to a lesser extent the other NWoD games) I think is one were it is most extreme, as the game literally went from A) Politics and conflict among the different factions, all out war, and a focus on setting and interaction with different factions to B) A personal horror game about how your character deals with being an undead monster.

One way or the other, character driven games appeal to a lot of people, and to those people setting exploration takes a second seat if their character has to voice their concern when they are going to raid the dungeon run by the poor defenseless goblins and steal the sword of great importance.

And of course, that is not bad, it's just a different style of play. I am sorry that you've had experiences with people that claimed that your preferred style of play is wrong.

[kyoryu]

What would bring back the Adventure is:

NPC's who talk more than a few words.

Descriptions of the environment besides "Duchess and Duke blah-di-blah say go fight what's-it for inadequately-explained reasons that the PC's just do because heroes", and "You see the what's-its, and they attack".

Challenges other than combat, maybe walls to climb? Traps to avoid? People to find? A chase?

Combat that's quick and that's deadly for the PC's as well as the antagonists, so it's something that you try to avoid, or use tactics, not "powers" to survive.

I so want to play a game with you. How are we going to do this?

[2D8HP]

....I suppose I'm one of those sorta-rare people that very much enjoy both mechanical depth, character depth and story depth, so I want my games to have each of those things.....

Hmmm...

When you put it that way, a "three-leg stool", with elements of mechanical (board/wargame-like) depth, character (improvisational radio theatre) depth and a certain kind of story depth (if story deprh means a rich setting beyond the GM just.reading off "10,000 years ago the McEldrich's settled the continent of Customlandia"), sounds like it would be fun

...The experiences that you are describing, at least from what I infer, have to do more with style of play rather than an intrinsic feature of roleplaying games today....

The build obsessed style of play that bugs me, I first saw a little bit in the 1980's with games like Champions, and a lot with Car Wars (though the build would be a vehicle not a PC), and it bugs me not because some enjoy it (I actually found specifying custom cars, and then battling them engrossing back-then), it's more the insistence that my PC's "measure up", and "Go Caster", when I just want to play something more like Robin Hood or Indiana Jones.

The character-driven stuff I first saw a lot of it in the early 1990's, and it is fun too, I like doing voices and speech mannerisms, if that's not all their is.

....I am sorry that you've had experiences with people that claimed that your preferred style of play is wrong.

Thanks.

It's more that they said that I did their preferred style wrong, either my "builds" and play was "sub-optimal" (probably true), or that my in-character banter was lacking (definitely true), which is kinda why I regard method-actoring and optimizing as similar: I'm bad at both.

I so want to play a game with you...

Wow thanks!

I should warn you, as a GM my last successful sessions (the players said they liked it, and "That was good") were of Call of C'thullu in they late 1980's, and as a player some of my most recent attempts (5e WD&D, and Pendragon) have netted me criticism of my in-character banter, but I have gone 'bout two years since someone has dared to hassle me about a sub par "build", probably because I've gotten a little less than absolutely terrible at it, and I'm now pretty clear early on what sorts of "suggestions" I'll welcome.

I did have one self proclaimed "extreme optimizer" that I played with a bit, invite me to some more games that others were DM'ing, but those haven't happened much yet.

How are we going to do this?

?

I just don't know, time and geography are a hurdle.

I've played some PbP' games at this Forum, so if that's an option...

[Darth Ultron]

As to the "If your just 'roll-playing' it's just a board game" line, have you seen boardgames lately? They're richer with more actual meaningful decisions and world detail than most RPG sessions now!

Board games like what? Monopoly? Life? Clue?

What would bring back the Adventure is
NPC's who talk more than a few words.

Descriptions of the environment besides "Duchess and Duke blah-di-blah say go fight what's-it for inadequately-explained reasons that the PC's just do because heroes", and "You see the what's-its, and they attack".

Challenges other than combat, maybe walls to climb? Traps to avoid? People to find? A chase?

Your adventure game sounds great, now you just need to decide what you will do in the game as a player with a character: Role Play or Roll Play.

Will you, Player Bob, role play out your Character Zom and talk to the NPCs for a couple minutes at least in real time?
OR will you Player Bob just roll a die and say ''my character talks to them and stuff and whatever''.

Will you, Player Bob, role play out your Character Zom in the environment described?
OR will you Player Bob just roll a die and ask it the spot check saw anything?

Will you, Player Bob, role play out your Character Zom interact with and try to solve challenges?
OR will you Player Bob just roll a die and pass the challenges?

[Friv]

Board games like what? Monopoly? Life? Clue?

Gloomhaven. Seventh Continent. Kingdom Death. Pandemic Legacy. Tales of the Arabian Nights. Mice and Mystics. Once Upon A Time. Betrayal at House on the Hill. Dead of Winter. Above And Below. Charterstone.

Even Sentinels of the Multiverse, Spirit Island, or Arkham Horror have a pretty decent story element to them in the background material and ways in which the game plays out a story.

[WindStruck]

To me "role-playing" and "roll-playing" are two sides of the same coin, and the "vs" between the "optimizers" and "method actors" isn't a debate I'm interested in, because emphasis on either and/or both gets in the way of something that I want more of in what have become to be called "role-playing games": The sense of exploring a rich and detailed world (not an "Empty Room" or its near twin the "passive-aggressive railroad").

Well your opinions don't matter if you purposely keep getting the definitions wrong.

Sorry.

[2D8HP]

...

Board games like what? Monopoly? Life? Clue?.

....have a pretty decent story element to them in the background material and ways in which the game plays out a story.

What he said

..Your adventure game sounds great, now you just need to decide what you will do in the game as a player with a character: Role Play or Roll Play.

Will you, Player Bob, role play out your Character Zom and talk to the NPCs for a couple minutes at least in real time?
OR will you Player Bob just roll a die and say ''my character talks to them and stuff and whatever''.

Will you, Player Bob, role play out your Character Zom in the environment described?
OR will you Player Bob just roll a die and ask it the spot check saw anything?

Will you, Player Bob, role play out your Character Zom interact with and try to solve challenges?
OR will you Player Bob just roll a die and pass the challenges?

What I have done as DM for TD&D, was for the player to say or paraphrase what the PC said, and if I remembered I sometimes looked at the PC's CHA and let it influence a little bit how well they did, I don't remember even considering a roll for it.

As a Keeper for Call of Cthullu, I'd have them roll their Fast Talk, or Oratory skill, maybe influenced a bit by what the player actually said at the table.

I've also seen in a game of Pendragon where a skill roll is made, and how bad or good the result informs how the player not the GM narrates the results.

This actually worked well for every player except me.

Me first attempt at narrating the results were rejected, and after my subsequent attempts I was told "Don't even bother".

Well your opinions don't matter if you purposely keep getting the definitions wrong.

Sorry.

Purposely?

I'm relaying my actual experience.

Please show me a game where your definition is applied.

No really, PLEASE!

I'm desperate here, it's a wasteland!

[Tanarii]

To me "role-playing" and "roll-playing" are two sides of the same coin, and the "vs" between the "optimizers" and "method actors" isn't a debate I'm interested in, because emphasis on either and/or both gets in the way of something that I want more of in what have become to be called "role-playing games": The sense of exploring a rich and detailed world (not an "Empty Room" or its near twin the "passive-aggressive railroad").

The difference it to me, it's "Roleplaying Elitists" vs "Mechanical-ists". (I'd say Gamists, but I've gone off that term now I know the history of GNS.)

Roleplaying Elitists are what you seem to be talking about. People that have a fairly narrow definition of Roleplaying, claim it's the only "True" roleplaying, and cast any other kind of roleplayers as roll-players. They leave me with a bad taste in my mouth too. Hence the big tent definition of roleplaying, and this thread.

[kyoryu]

I just don't know, time and geography are a hurdle.

I've played some PbP' games at this Forum, so if that's an option...

I'm more likely to do online via webcam, personally.

[2D8HP]

The difference it to me, it's "Roleplaying Elitists" vs "Mechanical-ists"....

Hmmm....,

Yeah those terms work, probably a little better than mine.

The weird thing is that while I have more sympathy for what I perceive the goals of the "Roleplaying Elitists" to be, I find their assumptions less valid, because while the goals of the "Mechanical-ists" just seem more trivial to me, I can imagine someone being able to get better at "mechanical optimizing" by spending a lot of time studying the rules and finding ways to exploit them, but short of spending an extraordinary amount of time taking improvisational acting and creative writing classes, I really don't see a way to be better at their kind of role-playing without actually getting to play and practice in actual games, so I find their assertion that it's something that can just be done with willpower stings more.

If the "Roleplaying Elitists" want others to be better at their kind of "role-playing" the way to do it is by invitation and example, though I've already experienced that they find my efforts annoying, so I don't expect much of that.

As annoying as I find their goals, surprisingly, the "Mechanical-ists" are usually more welcoming to the new and out of practice.

...Hence the big tent definition of roleplaying, and this thread.

Thanks!

At least I got some venting in!

[WindStruck]

Purposely?

I'm relaying my actual experience.

Please show me a game where your definition is applied.

No really, PLEASE!

I'm desperate here, it's a wasteland!

What you are saying what you want... it is most definitely a roleplaying game. But you also want a rules-light or a freeform game. That's all.

[kyoryu]

What you are saying what you want... it is most definitely a roleplaying game. But you also want a rules-light or a freeform game. That's all.

Being Also Old, I don't think that's what he's saying.

What he's saying is that he wants:

A) A game that isn't focused on mechanical builds
B) A game that offers exploration, not a linear series of "encounters" (usually combat) with little in the way of player choice between them
C) A game that isn't about a bunch of people with "their stories" that are coming together

Basically, the primary way games were played prior to, say, '85 or so.

[Tanarii]

Basically, the primary way games were played prior to, say, '85 or so.

I'd say '89, because that's when 2e came out. Otoh there was probably stuff going on in the field that led to TSR's changes and 2e. Being I was in high school I wasn't exactly in touch with the scene back then.

[GreatWyrmGold]

A Guide on How to Roleplay
Make decisions for your character in the fantasy environment.
Seriously, that's all there is to it.

That should be all there is to it, just like there should be nothing more to positive representation than not consciously making decisions about a character based on their gender/race/sexuality/whatever. But in both cases, that is exactly what people default to, and it lets the subconscious mind cause exactly the sorts of problems that a guide like this is intended to prevent.

There's a lot to say about roleplaying. If I were writing this kind of guide, I'd start with a largely-theoretical overview of the "point" of roleplaying, what a roleplayer does in the context of creating/experiencing fiction as an author/audience, and how various methods and actions play into or conflict with those, but I don't think anyone would care.

[2D8HP]

....Basically, the primary way games were played prior to, say, '85 or so.

As usual kyoryu hit it.

1985 is the year that Pendragon came out, which I loved (and still do), and it was the year that the AD&D Unearthed Arcana supplement came out, which I skimmed and....

....left in the store unbought, and didn't buy any other AD&D or D&D rules for over a decade, though I still played some but only using pre-'82 rules.

I have had some great sessions using game rules published after '85 (in particular I remember some Shadowrun, BECMI, and even WD&D), so I didn't hold pre '85 rules as mandatory, it's more a play style thing.

There's at least three you've posted to this thread that I think I'd really enjoy a game they would run no matter the rules vintage.

I do have a lower tolerance for how "heavy" the rules are that I'd be willing to GM than as a player, my upper limit as a GM or "Keeper" now is probably Call of C'thullu or BD&D, I wouldn't do AD&D again, nor would I'd do full bells and whistles WD&D, but I will play them.

At it's best (for me), despite getting the closest of any version of D&D, I still wouldn't call 5e a "role-playing" game (sorry Tanarii, I'm not as broadminded as you), but I have found it can be as fun of an adventure game as the best of them, but usually, as played, it's a surprisingly unsatisfying wargame, as most DM's "pull their punches" (I still play it in the hopes of it getting good again).

I have played satisfying wargames, so I think I.know the difference.

As played in the very early 1990's, I remember Vampire being a role-playing game, but I don't remember the rules well enough to be sure (and since modern-ish settings just aren't my cup of plasma I'm not likely to check).

A glance at Legend of the Five Rings, and 7th Sea makes it look like they may be role-playing games, but the only game that I'd definitely class as a role-playing game (instead of "roleplaying") is King Arthur Pendragon, .which I'd gladly play again.

The difference is rules mechanics that actually encourage you to portray a different personality (you can play a different personality without rules of course, it's called "acting").

KAP hasn't hit the highs of D&D yet, but it hasn't the lows either, but unfortunately none of the lame-os I gamed with in the mid '80's to the early 1990's (when I gave up), would try it ("6th century Britain isn't that fun dude"), so the young people of the 21st century are superior (sorry age-mates, you had your chance!).

Note: i don"t think a role-playing game is better or worse than an adventure game, a board game, a cardgame or a wargame (but all are better than videogames ), there have been many nights when I'd rather have been playing old D&D or Risk.

Besides many mentions of videogames at this Forum the games most mentioned are 3.5 WD&D, Pathfinder, and 5e WD&D.
While I have the rules, I've no experience playing 3.5/PF so I'm not going to guess, but as I mentioned 5e is the closest to a full role-playing game of any version of Dungeons & Dragons that I've played.

Would it be more fun if it had more LotFR or KAP-like mechanics to put it over into RP (yes I know of Backgrounds, Inspiration, and of course Alignment, but I only think they make it close)?

I really don't see how, the KAP RP mechanics remove some agency from the players to encourage RP, and given how "Alignment" has been used and mis-used in D&D, I don't see them working for D&D, and I think RP should be optional.

Or just maybe Darth Ultron's

Board games like what? Monopoly? Life? Clue?

jest was correct.

[Cooke26548]

You can watch free movies, new cinema movies, tv show and anime with multiple subtitles at 123FREE.NET

[kyoryu]

I'd say '89, because that's when 2e came out. Otoh there was probably stuff going on in the field that led to TSR's changes and 2e. Being I was in high school I wasn't exactly in touch with the scene back then.

I was going with DragonLance as the inflection point.

Hey, sounds like we're about equally old and decrepit!

role-playing game (instead of "roleplaying")

There's an interesting distinction here. It's not quite storygame, but I know what you're talking about, and don't have a useful term for it.

[Tanarii]

I was going with DragonLance as the inflection point.

To quote 2D8HP, that's a fair cop. As far as I know it was the first major save-the-world-story adventure-path series, in a way that Against the Giants or the like weren't.

[Knaight]

What would bring back the Adventure is:

NPC's who talk more than a few words.

Descriptions of the environment besides "Duchess and Duke blah-di-blah say go fight what's-it for inadequately-explained reasons that the PC's just do because heroes", and "You see the what's-its, and they attack".

Challenges other than combat, maybe walls to climb? Traps to avoid? People to find? A chase?

Combat that's quick and that's deadly for the PC's as well as the antagonists, so it's something that you try to avoid, or use tactics, not "powers" to survive.

The first three of these are pretty much just basic competence when running a roleplaying heavy game, and I'd argue that the middle two are basic competence with most styles (even if you were running a game that was literally just arena combat I'd expect better environment descriptions and some traps).

The fourth is genuinely stylistic. Combat lethality is a choice, as is the question of which sorts of mechanics one builds a game out of - "powers" as a thing are entirely optional.

I'm relaying my actual experience.

Please show me a game where your definition is applied.

No really, PLEASE!

I'm desperate here, it's a wasteland!

If you have time to burn on audio (which is generally conducive to multitasking) take a look at the Skies of Glass actual play. It's a pretty good example of a style in action, for all that actually playing a game would be better (which, Colorado, Thursdays, etc.).

A) A game that isn't focused on mechanical builds
B) A game that offers exploration, not a linear series of "encounters" (usually combat) with little in the way of player choice between them
C) A game that isn't about a bunch of people with "their stories" that are coming together

Basically, the primary way games were played prior to, say, '85 or so.

I'd also characterize this as how a huge amount of modern gaming goes. This is my baseline assumption of what RPGs look like as based on personal experience (though I've definitely seen evidence to suggest I'm pushing against the current to some extent), and I wasn't even close to born in '85.

[Morty]

I can understand nostalgia, but I do prefer it when it doesn't come with a giant heap of contempt for everything made after (insert year here) and insulting, sweeping generalizations about every improper form of participating in the hobby. Which tends to take over every thread it appears in.

[2D8HP]

I can understand nostalgia, but I do prefer it when it ..

FWLIW, I had more fun playing games in 2016 than in 1992, so I'm nostalgic for '16 as well as '81.

Bring back 2016!