The myth of good roleplaying

[poacher]

Is there anything like good roleplaying?

For years I've been told that good roleplaying is immersing oneself into the story and character, to really represent as if in a theater or movie, to be in character.

However, this is subject to change according to game: while it might be fun roleplay the purchase of a sword in D&D, that's not really the purpose of the game. By the same vein, you can play a Solar in a Dungeon, but that's not really the scope of Exalted. In CoC or AFMBE, it might prove to be good rolepaying to represent the fear your character has of the unknown, although you don't really have to. I might sound like I'm going for different things here, but they're actually pretty much the same, if you think about it: every game has a purpose and a feel to it that your character has to somewhat "conform" to; this is not bad in any way of the word, it just is. So in different games you have different approaches to "good" roleplaying.

Then come the games like PTA, which really take all that away and present you, the player as opposed to the character, with the option of taking control of everything. Admitedly, having only played once and never quite getting the grasp of it, I don't have enough experience with this kind of games; I prefer old-fashioned games, those where there is a clear definition between gamer and game master, a line that blurs in those kind of games. But in these games, the purpose is to tell a story, where everyone participate in equal parts, game master and gamer; a friend calls these kind of games "appropriate for lazy GM's", and while I don't fully agree with him, I understand his position. And from what little experience I have with it, I was told I was fully into the spirit and scope of the game, even if I couldn't fully appreciate the experience. This baffles me: I don't appreciate it and don't see myself in a position to be a "good roleplayer", however I'm told that it looks like I've been playing it for ages.

I'm sure plenty of you guys have similar stories; also you might have experiences of excelent game sessions, where everyone was giving their best and everyone was having fun; but were you good roleplayers?

So, given the state of our hobby, with the myriad of games at your disposal, is there, and if so what is, any good roleplaying?

Edit: of course, any reference to games does not pretend to insult any tastes, so please no flame wars!

[droog]

Seems to me that 'good roleplaying' means whatever you want it to. May I suggest using more specific language?

[Bookwrack]

I think that being percieved as roleplaying 'well' to an outside observer is more or less irrelevant compared to whether or not everybody had fun playing. I'd definetly have less fun in a game of CoC, if while all the rest of the players indulged had their PCs slowly go gibberingly insane, one insisted on channeling Peter Venkman no matter what the situation.

[Tim Kirk]

Yes. There is good role-playing. And it means different things to different people. Worse STILL! It can mean different things to the same people over time, because of shifting focus, interest, and desire.

Today I might want to really role-play out the buying of the sword with a shopkeep. Tomorrow, I might prefer to just smack some goblins down, tomorrow it may be trading quips with archnemesis ontop atomic powered dirigibles while using swinglines and sabers.

Role-playing is often about the needs of the moment. The creativity fulfilled now. One reason why people get all tangled up in their skivvies sometimes trying to cavort it into other things is because they try and move things out of the now. (and sure Gms may plan stuff to happen for campaigns in classic gaming style, but we all know how rarely in good games that remains "fixed" )

[harry lime]

Interesting!

I don't think good roleplaying in a game session has to be the same as good acting in a movie. And, from my experience, unless the players have real acting talent and taste, trying to transform the session into improvised theater delivers nothing but very large quantities of cheese! (So, what I'm saying here is -- CAN, but doesn't HAVE to).

What I try to do as GM, and advise my players to seek as well, is a good mix of the epic and the casual, so to speak. I had player's that worried a lot about their "acting" because they heard that "good acting" is the way to play WELL, the ultimate level of RPG mastery! (This was a very common concept in the 90's). The characters actions are important, what they say is important... describing what they do and how they do it is important... that's the "roleplaying" the game really NEEDS. ACTING these things out if you really can do it is ok, but not essential IMHO.

It's a game, it's FUN, and it's supposed to be CREATIVE FUN. The idea that "acting" is the most important and the one meaningful discipline is harmful to the fun. I try to reward any kind of creativity... some player's spit very good lines, but can't act. Others can't come up with good dialogue, but they have that sort of "Al Pacino magic" in which you can say "Where's the Bathroom" and you sound like the dramatic climax of a gangster movie. Some others cant'do either of the previous two, but are funny as hell. Other's still add to the mix simply because they always come up with the most fun and unusual course of action ever!

Mixing everyone's creative input into a fun story - that's how I try to do it.

If you can't act out the mean but fragilized gangster, is not a poet and never really tried to write, you can simply say...

"Conrad (my character) looks up to the door where Ann is standing and starts trying to speak. He looks as tough as ever, but you could sense some trembling in his voice and it's very scary. He finally manages to speak: -- I can't act, Michael. But I want to play too..."

No art needed if the player doesn't have it on him. But he can still play -- he saw tons of movies, reads books and comics, he has favorite characters and past experiences... I have no Oscars or Pullitzers or whatever hidden in my closet, anywhere! But I have memorable characters from people who couldn't act or write if their life depended on it!

[RSC]

Originally Posted by poacher

For years I've been told that good roleplaying is immersing oneself into the story and character, to really represent as if in a theater or movie, to be in character.

Smack whoever told you that.

However, this is subject to change according to game: while it might be fun roleplay the purchase of a sword in D&D, that's not really the purpose of the game.

If it's fun then that's the purpose of the game. That doesn't make it roleplaying, but it's certainly the purpose.

So in different games you have different approaches to "good" roleplaying.

None of that sounds like roleplaying one way or the other to me.

I'm sure plenty of you guys have similar stories; also you might have experiences of excelent game sessions, where everyone was giving their best and everyone was having fun; but were you good roleplayers?

Roleplaying is always secondary to me. I don't care if anyone I'm playing with roleplays or not - although it's better if I can't tell.

[tahrikmili]

Good roleplaying is getting around a table and making sure everyone has fun. If that means being immersed, then you must strive for immersion. If that means having booze and making stupid jokes about Shub Niggurath, then by all means.

Good roleplaying is the ultimate goal of an unspoken contract in a gaming group.. Every group is unique. Every goal is different. That doesn't mean good roleplaying doesn't exist.

HOWEVER, good roleplaying as accepted and expected by a majority of people on RPGnet seems to be immersionism in most cases, except in games where the focus and scope are different. That doesn't mean we RPGnet users are trying to define good roleplaying in definite terms - it just means we are entitled to our own view of what it is.

[SteveD]

Way I see it, good roleplaying isn't important to me, because, as we've established, it depends entirely on circumstance.

Good playing, however - the art of giving more energy than you take, and of working towards everyone's entertainment without damaging your own - that's what matters.

[flyingmice]

Originally Posted by SteveD

Way I see it, good roleplaying isn't important to me, because, as we've established, it depends entirely on circumstance.

Good playing, however - the art of giving more energy than you take, and of working towards everyone's entertainment without damaging your own - that's what matters.

Excellent Steve! I was trying to work out how to word waht good roleplaying is to me, but now I don't have to. Perfect!

-mice

[Redfeild]

Ah-ha! I have tricked you RPG.net! This time I saved my long reply!

Very good question.

I've played many RPG's over the years. Some were very imersive and some were little more than skirmishes with some in character talk. The style of play (imersive vs. casual) is dictated by the following.

1. The Game Itself: Games like Storyteller and Deliria are meant to be imersive In Character experiences. Having said that, its not always the case.

2. Game Masters Style: Some GM's like things fast and furious to get to the point. These GM's are ether sacrificing role play to get to the story, to focus on the combat (which can be fun), or because player X needs to get home to the wife and kids. It dose not mean the GM is lazy. combat centric games could be very time consuming to set up and run. Other GM's take the pace to a crawl so players can develop their character. To this GM the characters are the story. Characters develop interpersonal relationships between other Player Characters and Non Player Characters. They pursue goals not presented by the GM. When things start to get to slow or players get board the GM introduces a new NPC and/or presents the problem/goal/objective for the characters to deal with.
These are the two extremes I have dealt with. Most GM's work some where in between.

3. Players Style: No matter what style the GM has it often gets trumped by the players. I've seen this happen before. Players are itching to commit genocide on the monster of the weak while other players (usually just me) are trying to negotiate a settlement. Of coarse negotiation is dumb if you are playing a game like D&D where monsters have a set alignment. There is just no talking to a rampaging Pit Fiend. But other games require wit and phennes. Try whipping out your guns at the princes Elysium in Vampire: the Masquerade/Requiem and see how far you get. Never the less, it is some times prudent for a GM to cater to his players needs. If they need to split skulls then old/new World of Darkness may not be for them.

So what games have I played and how much RP was in them? I'm not going to include games I ran myself here. Just some of the ones I was a player.

Bushido: Complex combat. Some role play between NPC's and PC's. It was a very technical game but the role play we did was interesting.

Dungeons and Dragon: Most games would begin with lots of RP (usually at the bar ) Once the adventure got going it was 'My character dose this' and 'my character dose that'. An inversive D&D game is almost an oxymoron. Fun stuff non the less.

Minds Eye Theatre (LARP): LARP is the most heavily inversive role play you will ever experience so long as its not boffer LARP. I've gone hours in character. I've gone several consecutive games with out having to pull my character sheet. I had so much fun with one character that I forgot to cash in XP for nearly a year.
When I finally banked he was a bad @$$ and no one ever knew except the story teller (GM).

Star Wars D20: Good mix of RP and combat. We do not stay in character unless we interact with PC's or NPC's. When we do RP its always interesting and could kill up to and hour. We have an enthusiastic GM that has not yet burned out. I complain some times that I do not run games anymore but I'm enjoying being a player again.

When it comes to games I run, it often depends on my mood. I tend toward imersive RP dispersed with combat. A good mix of both I guess.