Good role-playing doesn't mean playing your character

[Jackob]

Okay, the headline’s a bit short. What it should say is:

Good role-playing does not necessarily mean playing your character to the hilt

Allow me to explain… with history.

When I first started, I (and those I played with) played in a certain style – a style I think most people started out with. It was all about winning the game, about being as effective as possible (the way D&D is set up, more or less). Characterization was, well, at most, a second thought. We played a lot of AD&D and thought that alignment and class was all that was really needed for a character – background, family, friends, favorite color were all things that might be added on, though usually only during the game and only if it became important. Back then, everyone used longswords or two-handed swords, because they were the most effective weapons.

Then my gaming style evolved and I began trying to play interesting characters because I realized that the game wasn’t about winning or losing, it was about playing your character and you could only lose if your character died (and if he died in a suitably heroic way, well, then that wasn’t a loss, was it?) and I was lucky enough to get GMs who did their level best to keep characters alive. Slowly, I arrived at the point where I realized that it was all about role-playing your character. Extensive backgrounds were as important as game-technical information, if not more so. If the most effective way to solve problems went against the way your character behaved, then you didn’t take the most effective way. Weapon choices were made based on what the character would use, not what was most appropriate.

Now, a lot of people would probably say that good role-playing = playing you’re your character. However, after thinking about it for some time, I’ve come to the conclusion that, IMO, this is not always the whole truth. And it all has to do with my firm belief that role-playing is all about having fun.

My idea came out of doing LARPs. I have done a large number of one-shot Live games and participated in several as well and in Live games with no or very few NPCs, the way the game is played changes – or at least it should. When introducing a Live game, I always tell the players that killing other characters is frowned upon, even if this is what their character would do, because it spoils the fun for others. I also see players adjust the goals or personality of their characters slightly in order to involve players who seem to have nothing to do. And I would call this good role-playing. Yes, you may not play your character 100%, but you are ensuring the fun of everyone involved. You are Playing The Game, not just Playing Your Role.

This also holds true in Table-Top gaming. While it is certainly the GM’s job to entertain the players and provide a game for them to play their characters in, I’d say it’s also the players’ job to play within the framework set by the GM (if the GM is actually a good GM who gives them a good game – otherwise, feel free to rebel. I know I’ve done that).
So what is it I am talking about, exactly?
It’s about sometimes acting slightly out-of-character in order to facilitate a smooth and fun game for all involved. Your character might be a hard-bitten starship captain, but when the girl with the sob-story shows up and asks for a free ride, you should give it to her – assuming the GM has declared what kind of game it is you’re playing.
Of course, a lot of this can be solved at the start of the game, through information about the style, themes and mood of the game from the GM and by taking a good, hard look at the characters created. But sometimes, people get so hung up on a certain concept that they end up creating it, no matter what. They may have jiggled it a bit and they may have declared that they have changed the problematic bits of the concept’s personality/history/prejudices/whatever in order to fit the game, but then they end up playing the concept anyway. Or a character may look good before the game starts, only to be revealed as problematic during the game. And then comes the standard line; “I am just playing my character.”
Nothing wrong with playing your character. After all, this is ROLE-playing, you’re portraying a ROLE. But at the same time, this is a role-playing GAME and you need to play the game by the rules. It’s no fair that you ruin the GM’s elaborate “”reluctant anti-heroes thrust into the role of saviors of the kingdom”-plot because you insist on being a cynical, backstabbing bastard. Sometimes, you just have to bend your character, his concept, personality, background or behavior.
This is especially evident in the way characters relate to each other. While some gaming groups seem to thrive on inter-party conflict, I personally prefer to play games where the group are loyal to each other and work together. And in this case, it’s vitally important that the characters are played in such a way that it doesn’t stretch credibility thinner than a supermodel on coke that the group stays together.
Of course, there are times when the GM will set up a situation where you either play your character and loser or violate your character’s established behavior and win (broadly speaking – I think you know the situations I am talking about). This is great, wonderful role-playing opportunities and these are not the situations I am talking about. Instead, imagine if Aragorn had insisted on going with Frodo to Mount Doom. That would have ruined both the story about Frodo and Sam’s friendship and trials and the story of Aragorn regaining the throne of Gondor. All because Aragorn’s player said; “I gave my word, I go with him, I am just playing my character.”
In the end, what I am saying in this; Sometimes, good role-playing is playing your character a bit wrong, in the interest of the bigger picture; plot, party, campaign, whatever.

[Jay]

I'd have to say that good roleplaying is playing your character to the hilt, but with bowing to the group dynamic, muzzling one's ego, and giving the others something to play with. It's the sign of a truly professional actor, and it arguably should be the sign of a good role-player, especially considering that RP depends almost totally upon group dynamics for it to be a fun experience for all involved.

[Belphanior]

A point I made earlier this weekend, "roleplaying" is not a good word for what we're doing. It should actually be "roleplay-gaming" or something.

That is to say, I fully agree with Jackob. Playing your character to the hilt is usually hard and laudable, but it doesn't have to be the correct thing to do. If your character is an ass who is disruptive to the game, you shouldn't be playing that character.

Some good traits that will make me prefer to "poor roleplayer" to the "good roleplayer" is being on time, bringing snacks, helping out the noobs, etc. There is more to this than just speaking with your funny accent and writing down 50 pages worth of backstory.

[JimLotFP]

Originally Posted by Jackob

Instead, imagine if Aragorn had insisted on going with Frodo to Mount Doom. That would have ruined both the story about Frodo and Sam’s friendship and trials and the story of Aragorn regaining the throne of Gondor. All because Aragorn’s player said; “I gave my word, I go with him, I am just playing my character.”

But by not going to Mount Doom with Frodo and Sam, the story of Aragorn and Faramir was utterly ruined, the awesome battle between Shelob and Aragorn was ruined, the story of the Ring's seduction of Aragorn was completely wasted, and the emergence of Gimli as leader at Helms Deep went right into the crapper.

All because Aragorn broke character.

[Jackob]

Originally Posted by JimLotFP

But by not going to Mount Doom with Frodo and Sam, the story of Aragorn and Faramir was utterly ruined, the awesome battle between Shelob and Aragorn was ruined, the story of the Ring's seduction of Aragorn was completely wasted, and the emergence of Gimli as leader at Helms Deep went right into the crapper.

All because Aragorn broke character.

No example is perfect - I just hope you got the gist of what I was saying.

[JonA]

You might like to peruse an old thread of mine that deals with some of the issues you mention:

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=157380

[JimLotFP]

Originally Posted by Jackob

No example is perfect - I just hope you got the gist of what I was saying.

And I hope you get the gist of what I'm saying... every decision makes a story different, and you can never tell if it will be for better or worse.

[Menchi]

Originally Posted by JimLotFP

But by not going to Mount Doom with Frodo and Sam, the story of Aragorn and Faramir was utterly ruined, the awesome battle between Shelob and Aragorn was ruined, the story of the Ring's seduction of Aragorn was completely wasted, and the emergence of Gimli as leader at Helms Deep went right into the crapper.

All because Aragorn broke character.

The whole Aragorn example is trite and pointless. Lord of the Rings is a NOVEL. Not a game. They are not the same things and have different structures.

I'm with the first post - Good roleplaying is about ensuring that everyone has a good time and a great story gets told in the process. Yes, playing your character is part of that - but it also is when you bow out and let someone else's character take the limelight as well. It's being able to sit out of a scene and still enjoy it.

These are the elements of good roleplaying.

Conan

[roguetamlin]

I am a total devotee to the concept of ROLEplaying and I think the real problem of this thesis is the idea that a character can't be so multifaceted as to be inconsistant. My rogue is pretty selfish, but in certain situations, she's very selfless. That doesn't mean she's not character consistant, just that she is complicated. Just like actual people.

[Random Goblin]

IMHO, it all depends on what the group's goal is when they play the game.

One goal may be Pure Roleplaying. Some people may be interested in playing their character's role to the hilt. If that's why everyone has come to the gaming table, then the GM gives them a situation and the players respond as their character would. True roleplaying by definition. Probably, the GM oughtn't plan elaborate plotlines, because they might get ruined. This sort of exercise is more about preenting a situation and allowing the characters to act within the situation. Maybe it's just entertaining, maybe you expand your horizons, maybe you learn somthing about yourself. Maximizing enjoyment through characterization.

I don't think that's how and why most people play, though.

Other goals:

Character Advancement and the accumulation of wealth and power. Not a damn thing wrong with this. It's like a video game but more open-ended, and video games are fun. there is some kind of plot, but it mostly exists to give direction to the character's advancement. the fun comes in becoming more powerful and then using the cool powers and items and whatever you get as you do get more powerful. In this game, playing your character becomes a little less important. It probably has some kind of game mechanic effect (like alignments in D&D). The challenges the GM faces the characters with are more important than plot development or characterization. This often gets derided as munchkin-gaming, power-gaming, or (playfully) as badwrongfun, but most people who play this way couldn't care less. They're having a blast and getting what they wanted out of the game they're playing. Maximizing enjoyment through in-game advancement.

GM Story. Nothing wrong with this, either. The GM has a story to tell, and he's like the players to help by playing the main characters. Plot becomes all-important, and although it will probably be written with the characters and their backgrounds and personalities in mind (as good fiction, i.e. good stories tend to be character-driven), it may be necessary for the individual player to subordinate his or her interpretation of the character's role to the advancement of the GM's story. Characterization is more important here than in a character advancement game, but not as important as in characterization. This doesn't have to include overt railroading, although the GM is definitely in control. To make this work, he needs to craeate the illusion of character choice, either by properly anticipating the PCs' choices (based on the players' or the characters' tendencies, whichever tends to be dominant), or by an "all roads lead to Rome" approach where even if the PCs choose door 2 instead of door 1, it leads to the room that door 1 would have led to (all figuratively speaking). Maximizing enjoyment through adhering to the story.

Collaborative Story. The GM has a plot in mind, but if the synergy created by his ideas and plans plus the characters' ideas and choices results in something cooler, he is perfectly willing to abandon his plot in favor of new developments. This is more of a compromise-required game. In this sort of game, when the player comes up with an idea or a course of action that entertains the GM or maximizes the spirit of the game, the GM is likely to run with it. At the same time, if the GM steers the plot in a direction where something cool, exciting, dramatic, or fun is about to happen, the players take appropriate action in order to maximize the game regardless of "what their characters would do." Or, to put it better, the players re-interpret or bend and twist their PCs' characterizations if it makes the story more dramatic. Thus, the GM subordinates the story to the players' actions while the players subordinate their actions to the GM's story. Either one or both at the same time, depending on what's the most enjoyable. This is not simply a hybrid of GM Story and Pure Roleplaying styles, because the GM generally bows to character actions, not characterization. It's more of a modification of the GM story approach, but where both characterization and predetermined plot take a backseat to fun. Maximizing enjoyment through GM-player compromise.