PDA

View Full Version : [Theory] Portrayal versus Exploration



Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-29, 08:58 AM
Over on the "Metagaming" thread, I've noticed a relatively hefty stumbling block when it comes to discussing our motivations for engaging in this hobby.

Pretty much everybody, or at least everybody on this forum, feels that the most important thing in an RPG should be "roleplaying": the act of playing your character.

However it is becoming increasingly clear to me that to different people, that simple phrase "playing your character" means vastly different things.

In particular, I've noticed two distinct camps (notably "mine" and "other people's") which I've started to think of as "Portrayal" and "Exploration."

I'm going to talk about "Portrayal" first, in an attempt to explain where I think other people are coming from. This isn't a deliberate attempt to misrepresent anybody, just an honest attempt to try and work out where folks are coming from.

Roleplaying As Portrayal of Character

I think a lot of people view "roleplaying" as being very, very similar to acting. You have a character, that character is to a large extent pre-defined, and your job is to make that character come to life in as convincing a way as possible.

To a "Portrayal" roleplayer, the key is to do what your character would do, where "what your character would do" could be defined by his stats, the GM, or by your personal decisions. To the Portrayal Roleplayer, all of these amount to the same thing. You no more expect to control your character than an actor expects to control his. Perhaps by extension, you don't expect to direct the game any more than an actor expects to write the play.

To take a couple of examples from my recent discussions: to this sort of roleplayer, having a GM tell you "your character is scared" is a challenge, it's a piece of direction which you are supposed to incorporate into your performance. It is an opportunity to roleplay being scared. Similarly, if you are told "your character is under a Charm spell", you have an opportunity to roleplay "being under a charm spell".

The Portrayal Roleplayer, therefore, is relatively easy to please. Pretty much anything that happens to him, he can react to in-character and portray an emotional response.

I think the majority of people, if pressed, subscribe to this definition of "roleplaying". When people talk about "roleplaying your character" they usually mean "portraying him in a convincing manner".

Roleplaying As Exploration of Character

I, on the other hand, view roleplaying very differently. I view it as an exploration of my character, a task more akin to that of an author than that of an actor.

Character Exploration has a different set of assumptions to Character Portrayal. I can *portray* a character according to any set of criteria you like, I can be scared, or angry, or trusting, or whatever you choose. But I cannot *explore* a character unless I am given pretty much complete freedom to do so.

The Exploration-Type roleplayer requires a sense of co-authorship, because he is trying to tell a story in exactly the same way as the GM is. His understanding of "roleplaying" is grounded in significant character decisions, rather than in portraying emotions and reactions.

So if you tell an Exploration-Roleplayer "your character feels scared" you do, in fact, remove his entire motivation for playing, because "under what circumstances does this character feel scared" was one of the questions he was trying to explore. The fact that he now gets to choose how to portray his character's fear is irrelevant, because the fear itself is what's important to him.

On the other hand, the Exploration Roleplayer might relish the opportunities provided by his character falling victim to a Charm spell. Since "is this character vulnerable to magic" was not part of the exploration, it doesn't matter that somebody else made the call about that. Now the Exploration Roleplayer gets to find out (or decide) exactly how his character will react under a Charm spell. Most importantly, he gets to decide where that all important "things you would never do" barrier gets drawn.

Exploration Roleplayers are, I think, much less easygoing than Portrayal Roleplayers, because they have their own very definite ideas about how they want their characters to be, and the situations they want to roleplay them in. Where a Portrayal Roleplayer, like an actor, thrives on the challenge of a difficult role, the Exploration Roleplayer has a very specific idea about what they actually want to *do* with their character, and won't be happy unless they get a decent shot at doing it.

At least, that's my theory. I may be completely off about the Portrayalists, but it's the best guess I can make.

Thoughts?

Fax Celestis
2007-06-29, 09:06 AM
I think you're pretty spot-on there, myself, except I do think that there is a third type. I personally don't really fit into either of those archetypes, but I'm not sure why not, and not sure exactly what I *do* with my characters in that regard.

In essence, I'm saying: good job picking out the primaries, but I'm confused because I don't fit in those.

Tyger
2007-06-29, 09:07 AM
For the most part, I think this is a pretty good theory. I'm an actor from way back, and easily fall into the Portrayal camp that you have described, which very likely accounts for our differences of opinion in the Metagaming thread too. :smallsmile: That said, I do think that such a division, while useful, is a bit of an oversimplification. Many "portrayal" RPers are also exploring their character, allowing them to grow and to learn, almost independent of the player's choices. Most, if not all, of my characters have started off with a defined role and place in the world they are in, and yet, through circumstances, I as a player have been forced to change that role, those views and that place.

I think that the biggest distinction isn't really a matter of Explorer vs. Portrayal, its a question of Independent vs. Dependent. An Independent RPer is constantly seeking out the answers within their character, looking to examine them and discover who/what they are. The Dependent RPer on the other hand, changes in response to outside stimula. Of course there is cross-over, but that's how I see the division you are looking at.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-29, 09:11 AM
I think you're pretty spot-on there, myself, except I do think that there is a third type. I personally don't really fit into either of those archetypes, but I'm not sure why not, and not sure exactly what I *do* with my characters in that regard.

In essence, I'm saying: good job picking out the primaries, but I'm confused because I don't fit in those.

Perhaps you're a roll player...

(I kid, I kid...)

Ultimately I'm not setting this up as a "big model", more as a "I see things this way, I think a bunch of you see things the other way, I think that's vaguely interesting."

Ulzgoroth
2007-06-29, 09:17 AM
My 1.5 cents worth...

I think I adhere (in principle) to something like the Portrayal school you describe. Sort of. But while I think there is somewhat of a split, I don't think you've characterized it very well.

Regardless of the approach to roleplaying you take, I would expect being informed of your character's emotions rather than determining them, except in cases of actual mind-effecting abilities, would completely subvert the point. You aren't supposed to be acting out someone else's script.

But while I've gotten the impression that some people do, I have no interest in controlling the setting to suit the character's development. Setting belongs to somebody else, I'm here to react to it.

Fax Celestis
2007-06-29, 09:18 AM
I'll be honest: half my enjoyment of the game comes from use/abuse of the mechanics. Well, not "abuse", but using them in strange and unique ways.

Wolf_Shade
2007-06-29, 09:18 AM
I think one misconception might be that portrayal players aren't explorers. Some people put the exploration of their character into the time before the character is ever played. Your definition of the Portrayal Player ignores that they were the author before the game started. There is no reason to explore in game, because the character is already fleshed out. You may not know what the character will do in every situation (as I don't think any one person is capable of conceiving every single situation their character might ever be in) but they do have a personality defined that would govern what actions would be taken. This of course does not apply if the character is pre-made and handed to them by someone else, then yes they basically become an actor.


As for "your character is afraid" this seems to be a non-DMish function unless the fear is magical. Whether your character is afraid of something or not is, in my opinion, entirely up to the player based on the character. That however might be a [Theory] DM Styles discussion though.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-29, 09:24 AM
I think one misconception might be that portrayal players aren't explorers. Some people put the exploration of their character into the time before the character is ever played.

Ah, but that's part of my point, really.

If you're doing all your "exploration" before the game even starts, you're not really exploring.

For me, if I knew exactly how a character would react in any and all situations, I wouldn't bother playing him. It'd be like reading a book when you already know the ending.

Besides which, it's a matter of priorities. Explorers clearly "portray" as well, it's just that the emphasis is different.

When a "Portrayer" roleplays their character as being afraid, they're saying "I am portraying the emotion of fear", whereas when an Explorer does it they're saying "I consider it important that my character would be afraid of this."

As for the "your character is scared of this" thing, it was a specific disagreement on another thread. I was genuinely amazed how many people weren't bothered by the idea of the DM telling them how their character felt.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-29, 09:25 AM
I'll be honest: half my enjoyment of the game comes from use/abuse of the mechanics. Well, not "abuse", but using them in strange and unique ways.

Oh I'm sure it is for a lot of people as well.

We all get very precious about our roleplaying and our co-operative storytelling and the importance of character.

But it's also really cool to critical hit for 214 points of damage, or try to design a TWF build that doesn't suck.

Piccamo
2007-06-29, 09:32 AM
I think you're pretty spot-on there, myself, except I do think that there is a third type. I personally don't really fit into either of those archetypes, but I'm not sure why not, and not sure exactly what I *do* with my characters in that regard.

In essence, I'm saying: good job picking out the primaries, but I'm confused because I don't fit in those.

As with all categories, people often don't perfectly fit into one or the other. Most people are closer to the middle ground, they just waiver on one side or the other.

Personally, I enjoy the exploration. I have a character concept when the character is created. He has a background and motivation, which creates his initial personality. As different events occur his motivation, and by association his personality, evolves.

I enjoy playing with a character's personality more than going on the quest to save the world.

hewhosaysfish
2007-06-29, 09:36 AM
For me, if I knew exactly how a character would react in any and all situations, I wouldn't bother playing him. It'd be like reading a book when you already know the ending.

But if you don't know (or can't work out) ahead of time how a character will act in particular situation then how decide how he will act when the situation happens?

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-29, 09:47 AM
But if you don't know (or can't work out) ahead of time how a character will act in particular situation then how decide how he will act when the situation happens?

You go with what feels right. Characters evolve in play. They wind up being more than you created them as being, if you let them. If a game's worth playing, unexpected things will happen in it anyway.

Suppose I have a character, let's say he's a Barbarian, and in my initial conception he's your straightforward "Like to smash: smash now?" greataxe on a stick.

In play, though, I find that when combat occurs, I hold back, I use stealth, ambushes, even archery. For whatever reason my character has gone from being a mindless berzerker to a wily hunter.

Now I could say to myself "Damn, I suck at roleplaying, I was supposed to play this character this one way and you didn't" or I could say "wow, that's really cool, that character wound up being completely different from how I initially imagined them being."

This is also why I don't set much store by character backgrounds. If I had written on a piece of paper "my character is a mindless berzerker" then the DM would be really upset when I played him as a canny hunter. It's also why I'm not mad keen on "roleplaying your ability scores": I don't know how smart a character is going to be until I've played them for a couple of months.

Fixer
2007-06-29, 09:49 AM
I think you are at the point you no longer see the forest for the trees.

When I build a character, the first thing I often do is generate the numbers, classes, and some skills. This is where most of the min-maxing occurs.

After I have this much, I imagine what the character enjoys and dislikes. How he feels towards others and how he feels towards himself. What he sees as his role in the larger world around him.

Using these details, I start filling out more of the character sheet, which often results in delving deeper into his character (pun intended).

I often rewrite some of his skills, or perhaps a class, or reassign some of his numbers until I have, in my mind, a complete artificial person in my head. I know how he feels, how he thinks, what motivates him and how he will respond to everyday situations.

Now, if I just left it at that then I would be a Portrayal person. I don't.

When I actually take this character to into a game, he gets exposed to things I would not likely have thought of. This is where the excitement comes from. This would be the exploration of character you describe. Unlike your example, though, if a DM said my character was suffering from a fear effect and I knew he was normally rather brave, I would play him as being overcome by supernatural fear instead of a normal fear response and have him behave accordingly. I already know how he would deal with regular fear, but each circumstance where he fails a Will save is an opportunity to delve into a fractured aspect of his character that his normal dominant personality keeps suppressed.

The DM tells us about the world and how it affects our character but s/he does not tell us how our character feels, no matter what the spells do. The DM can say we are under an effect and require us to behave in a certain manner, but our feelings are our own to control. How he responds AFTER the effect becomes the exploration part of his character. He might get scared of failing again and try to improve his 'mental defenses', or he might be ashamed and try to go overboard with bravery, or any number of other options that are entirely dependent on the exact situation, and to some extent the other players' reactions.

It isn't a black and white situation. It is a remarkable shades of grey situation.

banjo1985
2007-06-29, 09:51 AM
I'd say these two factions are a pretty good representation of the extreme ends of the roleplaying field, but like many others, I think there is a big band in the middle of people who like and do a bit of both to differing extents. I personally would put myself in the middle band, leaning a little towards exploration. I like to explore and develop the character as the game continues, and I want to learn how my character will react in a given situation.

But if my GM says "hey, there's a big freakin dragon over there, your characters never seen one and it's rather intimidating" boy I'll act scared!

Piccamo
2007-06-29, 10:11 AM
When I build a character, the first thing I often do is generate the numbers, classes, and some skills. This is where most of the min-maxing occurs.


I usually start with my character concept, then attach character classes to it that make the character good at fulfilling that concept.

Winterwind
2007-06-29, 10:43 AM
While your classifications seem accurate, I would propose a third type of player I would call the "Story Player". Though, arguably, one might also consider it a specific sub-type of one of the other two kinds, probably mostly the Portrayal type.

The Story Player would be a player who creates a more or less fleshed out character, but does not intend the character to stay that way. Instead, (s)he has some basic idea on how the character is going to change in-play. The interesting part is then both portraying the change, and exploring what causes the change to happen and how exactly it works out.
Huh. I guess it's more of a middle ground than I initially thought.

For example, I once created a character who was the leader of an esoteric sect, well aware all the apocalyptic prophecies, weird crystal healing practics and all the other voodoo were utter nonsense - he just used the gullibility of the people to gain power over them and make them give him their money. An obviously Evil character.
I hate Evil characters. Whenever I play instead of GMing, my character is usually the voice of good and conscience in the group. Still, I chose to play such a character that time - with the intent to have him realise what he had done, to completely break down mentally and, tormented by his conscience, to try to make up for his past sins. But that was not part of the character's background, I wanted to experience this progress in play. I had no idea what event would cause him to change his ways, nor how exactly it would go (and that was what interested me most about this character), but I had a basic idea of how the character was going to deviate from the way he was originally created.

I find that something akin to that (though usually less extreme) is often part of my character creation process. I am the only one I know who prefers it that way, though - the rest of my group prefers to portray a specific character and expects the GM to confront them with situations which may change the character (whether they chose to use the chance for change and which way the change goes is, of course, the player's call). This is more similar to the Portrayal player Dan suggests, but not identical either.

Oh, and in our group, we always first develop the character's personality and background, and chose the numerical values afterwards. It would be hard to know the character needs to have lots of points in skills like "Computer: Matrix Games" or "Art: Graffiti" otherwise (to name two ShadowRun examples; I've had characters where half of the skill points went into stuff like this).

Fax Celestis
2007-06-29, 10:50 AM
While your classifications seem accurate, I would propose a third type of player I would call the "Story Player". Though, arguably, one might also consider it a specific sub-type of one of the other two kinds, probably mostly the Portrayal type.

The Story Player would be a player who creates a more or less fleshed out character, but does not intend the character to stay that way. Instead, (s)he has some basic idea on how the character is going to change in-play. The interesting part is then both portraying the change, and exploring what causes the change to happen and how exactly it works out.
Huh. I guess it's more of a middle ground than I initially thought.

For example, I once created a character who was the leader of an esoteric sect, well aware all the apocalyptic prophecies, weird crystal healing practics and all the other voodoo were utter nonsense - he just used the gullibility of the people to gain power over them and make them give him their money. An obviously Evil character.
I hate Evil characters. Whenever I play instead of GMing, my character is usually the voice of good and conscience in the group. Still, I chose to play such a character that time - with the intent to have him realise what he had done, to completely break down mentally and, tormented by his conscience, to try to make up for his past sins. But that was not part of the character's background, I wanted to experience this progress in play. I had no idea what event would cause him to change his ways, nor how exactly it would go (and that was what interested me most about this character), but I had a basic idea of how the character was going to deviate from the way he was originally created.

I find that something akin to that (though usually less extreme) is often part of my character creation process. I am the only one I know who prefers it that way, though - the rest of my group prefers to portray a specific character and expects the GM to confront them with situations which may change the character (whether they chose to use the chance for change and which way the change goes is, of course, the player's call). This is more similar to the Portrayal player Dan suggests, but not identical either.

Oh, and in our group, we always first develop the character's personality and background, and chose the numerical values afterwards. It would be hard to know the character needs to have lots of points in skills like "Computer: Matrix Games" or "Art: Graffiti" otherwise (to name two ShadowRun examples; I've had characters where half of the skill points went into stuff like this).

There we go. That's what I was looking for. I'm one of those.

PaladinBoy
2007-06-29, 10:56 AM
I don't really fit into one of those definitions. I start with a definition for my character and a general idea of how he'll react to situations, but part of the reason why I play is to learn how my character will react to situations that I never envisioned. (The other part is beating the crud out of the monster/organization of the week with magic. :smallbiggrin: )

Emperor Tippy
2007-06-29, 11:17 AM
I'll be honest: half my enjoyment of the game comes from use/abuse of the mechanics. Well, not "abuse", but using them in strange and unique ways.

Agreed.


I also don't really fit into either category very well.

But that might come from my belief that the DM is supposed to be neutral and just run the world.

hewhosaysfish
2007-06-29, 11:21 AM
Suppose I have a character, let's say he's a Barbarian, and in my initial conception he's your straightforward "Like to smash: smash now?" greataxe on a stick.

In play, though, I find that when combat occurs, I hold back, I use stealth, ambushes, even archery. For whatever reason my character has gone from being a mindless berzerker to a wily hunter.

Hmmm.... My question perhaps wasn't worded too well.
What I'm trying to understand is how this Explorer idea works at all.

Thing about the smashy/cunning barbarian example, I can't stop myself thinking of the term "Shroedinger's Barbarian". He is both smashy and cunning simultaneously until... well until he does pretty much anything in the game, really, whereupon he is completely indistinguishable from a barbarian whos personality was decided an hour earlier at the start of character gen.

Is the explorer really exploring anything? Are they gaining any new information from anywhere? Or are they making all the same decisions that the Portrayer makes, just halfway through play?

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-29, 11:23 AM
Hmmm.... My question perhaps wasn't worded too well.
What I'm trying to understand is how this Explorer idea works at all.

Thing about the smashy/cunning barbarian example, I can't stop myself thinking of the term "Shroedinger's Barbarian". He is both smashy and cunning simultaneously until... well until he does pretty much anything in the game, really, whereupon he is completely indistinguishable from a barbarian whos personality was decided an hour earlier at the start of character gen.

Is the explorer really exploring anything? Are they gaining any new information from anywhere? Or are they making all the same decisions that the Portrayer makes, just halfway through play?

They're making the same decisions, just halfway through play, and that's the important bit.

The other important difference, though, is the emphasis placed on "significant in-character decisions" rather than "portrayal of in-character reaction to events."

Inyssius Tor
2007-06-29, 11:32 AM
I'll be honest: half my enjoyment of the game comes from use/abuse of the mechanics. Well, not "abuse", but using them in strange and unique ways.

Well, yes. With a combat-oriented, rules-heavy game like D&D, everyone who plays is (at least partially) in it for the mechanics.
Everyone plays with a mix of roleplaying and "rollplaying"; this theory seems like it only applies to the former.

hewhosaysfish
2007-06-29, 11:41 AM
They're making the same decisions, just halfway through play, and that's the important bit.

The other important difference, though, is the emphasis placed on "significant in-character decisions" rather than "portrayal of in-character reaction to events."

I still feel like there's a false distinction being drawn here.

Suppose I have a character who I know feels a very close bond to his friends. Suppose this character is offered a chance to break some terrible, terrible curse placed on him earlier in the campaign but at the cost of betraying one of his friends. What is the player doing now? Are they portraying their character's moral dilemma or exploring their motivations?

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-29, 11:47 AM
I still feel like there's a false distinction being drawn here.

Suppose I have a character who I know feels a very close bond to his friends. Suppose this character is offered a chance to break some terrible, terrible curse placed on him earlier in the campaign but at the cost of betraying one of his friends. What is the player doing now? Are they portraying their character's moral dilemma or exploring their motivations?

They're Portraying, whatever they do. You always are.

But they're only Exploring if the moral dilemma is genuine.

If the BBEG says to your character "turn on your comrades, and I shall lift the curse you are under!" but you know that the DM won't really let you betray the party, you're not Exploring, just portraying. Your character's ultimate decision won't decide his fate.

Winterwind
2007-06-29, 11:50 AM
I still feel like there's a false distinction being drawn here.

Suppose I have a character who I know feels a very close bond to his friends. Suppose this character is offered a chance to break some terrible, terrible curse placed on him earlier in the campaign but at the cost of betraying one of his friends. What is the player doing now? Are they portraying their character's moral dilemma or exploring their motivations?The difference between a Portrayal player and an Exploration player as Dan has defined them would be, that the Portrayal player would know beforehand what the character would chose. The Exploration player would, quite possibly, only at this very moment learn that, yes, this is the borderline where the character's loyalty ends and self-preservation kicks in. Or, that this character is indeed heroic enough to make the sacrifice for his friends' sake.

Saph
2007-06-29, 11:56 AM
I'm with Fish - this feels like a pretty arbitrary distinction. Neither category describes me very well, nor any of the players in my group. All of the good RPers I've seen do both - they start with a character, and build on it as it develops in play.

- Saph

valadil
2007-06-29, 11:58 AM
Nice post. I've had the same theory but with different vocabulary. I'm pretty thoroughly on the exploration side of the fence, and I always thought of it as method acting. You have to think what your character thinks and then the right actions will follow. I thought of the portrayal side more as surface acting (not sure if theres a better term for it though), where you choose some traits to play and then figure out the character from there. Although that type seems foreign to me, I can see how it would work. I once took party in a theater game exercise where we were told to walk around the room and mimic how someone walked. Then exaggerate it. Then add some sort of feature. Ten minutes later we stopped and asked people who the character was behind that walk and everyone had some deep and interesting answer.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-29, 11:59 AM
The difference between a Portrayal player and an Exploration player as Dan has defined them would be, that the Portrayal player would know beforehand what the character would chose. The Exploration player would, quite possibly, only at this very moment learn that, yes, this is the borderline where the character's loyalty ends and self-preservation kicks in. Or, that this character is indeed heroic enough to make the sacrifice for his friends' sake.

Precisely.

It's a difference in perspective, rather than execution.

The Portrayer cares about portraying the character's moral dilemma, but doesn't necessarily care about the actual decision. Indeed it is possible that the Portrayer wouldn't even care if he made the decision himself, or if the DM did it for him.

On the other hand the Explorer doesn't really care about portraying the decision, only about making it. He won't mind if he doesn't get to do the big "No! I reject your offer, Mr BBEG" speech which, to the Portrayer is bread and butter.

As many folks have observed, few people are actually wholly one way or the other. It's a distinction I observed mostly from people having exchanges like:

"But if your DM tells you your character is afraid of something, that's a great roleplaying opportunity!"
"No, if the DM tells me my character is afraid of something that defeats the point of roleplaying."
"But you get to decide how your character reacts!"

Which strikes me as essentially being a disconnect between somebody who views Roleplaying primarily as Portrayal, and somebody who views it primarily as Exploration.

Winterwind
2007-06-29, 12:16 PM
As many folks have observed, few people are actually wholly one way or the other. It's a distinction I observed mostly from people having exchanges like:

"But if your DM tells you your character is afraid of something, that's a great roleplaying opportunity!"
"No, if the DM tells me my character is afraid of something that defeats the point of roleplaying."
"But you get to decide how your character reacts!"

Which strikes me as essentially being a disconnect between somebody who views Roleplaying primarily as Portrayal, and somebody who views it primarily as Exploration.Well, if taking this specific example as test how I would classify myself, I'd have to say I am Exploration type. I don't think it's up to the GM to decide whether a character perceives something as scary. Unless it was something on the scale of a Lovecraftian abomination, where this creature being so horrible no other reaction than being frightened to (or beyond) the edge of madness was part of the world. I mean, a Call of Cthulhu investigator with any SAN points left who was not afraid when seeing Azatoth would just not be possible by definition. Then again, that moment would not be about "is the character scared?" so much, as about "what does the character do when almost dying of fear?". This does not prevent the player to still chose the character to behave in a heroic manner (a hero is, after all, not so much somebody who knows no fear, but who knows how to conquer it).

asqwasqw
2007-06-29, 12:21 PM
I don't think anybody fully protrays in the sense that if X happens, then Y, if A happens, then B, etc. I think everybody explores what their character is willing and not willing to do.

Damionte
2007-06-29, 12:23 PM
I don't believe the original ideas work very well for defining where role players sit. As the two camps are not distinct or mutually exclusive. I've known and seen many great actors who are actually exploritory by nature.

Have you ever seen or heard the expression of taking a part or character or song and making it your own. A performer takes elements of direction, filters it through themselves and comes out with a performance on the other side. Every actor does this, every musician does this, every role player does this. Every one.

I believe the distinction comes into play by how much of yourself you put into the performance. Just how much do you change the original idea based on your own sense of self, based on your own experience, based on what you personally understand as true.

I can give an example from our own play group. I have long ago become type cast, because of the way I tackle playing role playing games. In that I generally always play myself to different degrees. I don't generally play a character that is vastly different from myself. As eventually my own sense of right and wrong will start to filter through and effect the way I portray that character. Though the contrast of the character is interesting, and sometimes fascinating, it can also at times not be any fun. I can become very uncomfortable in the character. On stage that would be neat, as that's what I'm there to do. At the game table though I'm there to have fun. I've foudn over the years that I have more fun when I don't have to struggle with the character motivations. I will always stay true to the character the more of myself i place in the character to begin with.

A couple of my gameing partners don't do it the same way. They have mroe fun when they're ableto be somethig other than themselves. They play D&D as an escape from self. They can release those inner demons by being as far away form themselves in character as possible. When they create a character it comes with it's own belief code. Something usualy different from thier own. They work out his reactions as we go based on this initial understanding of the character. Then ofcourse the character develops as the story goes on. Either changing due to outside influence, or not changing. Depends on what we go through.

I though use myself as the base character. I go through all of the same situations. But I usemyself as the baseline character. When I make a character it is "me" had I been in "that" life. My friends will often look accross the table and dare to tell me I am not roleplaying because they see all of my characters as very similar. If not the same guy with different powers. "To be honest I can say the same thing. because most players are NOT very good actors they really lack the ability to play outside of themselves. (WHICH IS THE MARK OF A GREAT ACTOR ANYWAY.) so eventually the "self" starts to take over thier character concept anyway and they nearly always and I mean 90% of the time revert to the same just like them character they always play.

So to summarise, I believe the role playign camps break down to how much of yourself are you, or are you not putting into your character. As one aspect.

Perhaps another aspect of character is what we seem to be focusing on in this thread; being how much do you let the characters experiences change or not change thier outlook on the world. Or how you react to the world.

Neon Knight
2007-06-29, 12:40 PM
I'm with Saph and hewhowsaysfish. This is a false distinction.

barawn
2007-06-29, 12:44 PM
At least, that's my theory. I may be completely off about the Portrayalists, but it's the best guess I can make.

Thoughts?

I don't really see that difference. The game forces evolution of the character no matter what - he meets friends, NPCs, experiences things, gains levels, possibly new abilities, new responsibilities, etc. I don't think anyone who's ever roleplayed for a decent length of time hasn't ended up with a different character than when they started.

The only real difference I see is in one case, the character's solid and fleshed out at the beginning, whereas in the second, it's more of a vague concept that solidifies over time.

rollfrenzy
2007-06-29, 12:53 PM
@fax and winterwind
The type of "story" character you define would be a portrayal character unders Dan's system. This is because you have a pre-set situation and set of feelings and attitudes that you plan on protraying throughout the game. Even though these change, you had already decided that they will. An exploration type player would be surprised by the change, he would begin with no plan on changing, but when the circumstance to cause the change occured, he would take the character that direction, or more properly, the charcter would take the player in that direction.

As with ALL theories of this sort, it is not a one or the other situation. It is more of a sliding scale. Also, one player can go into either camp depending on how they play EACH CHARACTER. I myself have made characters, come up with a solid background, know how they feel, act, think, etc. and then Portray that character through the events laid before him. I have also made characters with just a few simple lines of ideas and Explore who those characters are. I am actually frequently honestly surprised by the personality that comes out, and the decisions made.

I guess that the theory would be much more properly stated as there are two ends of a spectrum of types of character creation and developement. As opposed to there are two types of players.

@ Diamonte
That would also be considered portrayal rp'ing under Dan's system, because if you are playing a "pre-defined" set of moral codes, attitudes and personalities, you have already explored the character (you) and are protraying him through diffrent situations. In your case you are near the middle of the spectrum though as it sounds like you explore your reactions and unless I miss my guess, you have learned things about yourself through play.

Diggorian
2007-06-29, 12:54 PM
First off, any DM that tells me I'm scared without meaning some mechanical Fear effect I'm subject to is no DM for me. It's a storytelling failure that Tells without Showing: "It's a big scary troll!" instead of a well crafted intimidating description.

I guess that makes me an Explorer primarily, although I take more pride in the Portrayl because that's what makes the character. Really the two in my view are like two parts of the same process, like inhalation and exhalation.

A personality is made with nature and nurture: my rolled mental stats (Int, Wis, Cha) are my nature and my backstory is the nurture. How would a character with these stats adjust to this life. The story of the game introduces new situations to life which requires exploration of the presonality to determine a reaction, which is the portrayl of the personality given the current scenario.

Many scenarios are easy: Party halfling cleric extolls the virtues of and encourages me to worship Sheela Peryroyal. My clanless hobgoblin worships Nomog-Gea the Torturer and has justified the harsh cruelty of his life through the belief that pain is the crucible of excellance according his god. Exploration results: Hell no!

His Cha is abit above average, and he is friends with the cleric, so the portrayl comes out like: "Your goddess teaches ... lovely ideas, but they leave one comforted and relax the Perimeter. Were I a simple ... shire farmer I'd bask in these, but I'm born and bred for war. Death WILL find me ready whenever it comes."

Other scenarios are more difficult, so much so they may change the personality of the character. This same character ran into an Aboleth's Mucus Cloud and a botched Knowledge roll made us believe it was the Slime. Remove disease and Restoration didnt work, so I had to explore deeper. The decision to portray was suicide. My party rallied around me, some supporting my decision others rejecting it, but the care they showed made them my friends. Luckily it wore off after 3 hours after our negotiation with the Aberration.

Inhale scenario, explore, discover, filter, exhale portrayl.

HidaTsuzua
2007-06-29, 12:57 PM
The distinction to me is really two parts. One is "how much of a character's background and personality before gameplay is made and how rigidly do you stick to it?" and the other is "how much freedom do you want from the GM when deciding how your character should act?"

I've seen both ends of the answer to the former question. One player allows had elaborate backgrounds for their character and basically knew what their character would do. And she stuck to whatever she came up with for creation for the rest of the game. I myself tend to the opposite end. I only come up with a rough framework of a character's personality at creation and then work on it throughout gameplay. I personally view this as a better means for making a character since it allows the character to grow organically during gameplay and response to the game world (this helps a lot if you've misinterpreted something in the setting). Some of the best traits my characters had (Jarovit's speeches, Kori's genocidal tendencies, Maxis's ties to the spirit world, Zuchika's dislike of merchants) came up during gameplay since I had more time to think about the world and how the world worked out in gameplay.

The latter is a very different issue and is a big part in the metagame debate. I don't know if this a spectrum or a case by case basis. Really it depends on the campaign though I tend to shy towards giving the characters a lot of freedom. I'm used to games where the PCs are free to do what they wish and nothing is scared if they can pull it off (L7R is based on this principle). Other people will take other opinions on this.

As for arbitrary distinctions, distinctions are arbitrary. The question should be "are the distinctions ones that are useful for discussion."

Xefas
2007-06-29, 01:01 PM
My players' roleplaying extends to Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate checks with their overarching personal character modivations being: "If I, myself, were in a town, and were 10x as deadly and could sustain 20x the damage of any normal guy, exactly what would I do?"

"If I, myself, had the power to light masses of people on fire from 1000 feet away without them either knowing or being able to do anything about it, what would I do?"

"If I, myself, could mysteriously hide behind a well-placed shrubbery half my size as to where noone could detect me whatsoever and could apparently lie SO well, I can convince the random guy on the street that I'm really a magic genie bear with lazer-vision who can grant wishes, what would I do?"

"If I, myself, were standing outside this brothel, with 10,000 gold from a dragon hoard and a Wand of Bear Endurance and Grease..."

Neon Knight
2007-06-29, 01:10 PM
As for arbitrary distinctions, distinctions are arbitrary. The question should be "are the distinctions ones that are useful for discussion."

I feel this distinction is not useful to discussion because it is false.

Allow me to elaborate. I would have in my earlier post, but the siren call of pizza lured me from my keyboard.

This isn't portrayal vs. exploration. This isn't actorship vs. authorship. This is planning vs. improvisation. Heck, I might be tempted to call it Law vs. Chaos.

The "explorer" isn't exploring, he is improvising.


I don't really see that difference. The game forces evolution of the character no matter what - he meets friends, NPCs, experiences things, gains levels, possibly new abilities, new responsibilities, etc. I don't think anyone who's ever roleplayed for a decent length of time hasn't ended up with a different character than when they started.

The only real difference I see is in one case, the character's solid and fleshed out at the beginning, whereas in the second, it's more of a vague concept that solidifies over time.

Exactly. This is exactly how I feel. One has a solid fleshed out concept that he role plays. The other doesn't and improvises as he goes along.

Improvisation is perfectly valid. I just feel you are dressing it up as something else. I merely felt the need to cut off the excess baggage. You saw a difference, and then tried to define it, but I feel you got far too complicated when the difference was something really simple. *Puts down Occam's Razor*

Piccamo
2007-06-29, 01:15 PM
In other words you are arguing the name, not the premise?

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-29, 01:19 PM
I feel this distinction is not useful to discussion because it is false.

Allow me to elaborate. I would have in my earlier post, but the siren call of pizza lured me from my keyboard.

This isn't portrayal vs. exploration. This isn't actorship vs. authorship. This is planning vs. improvisation. Heck, I might be tempted to call it Law vs. Chaos.

The "explorer" isn't exploring, he is improvising.

You've missed half of the argument.

What I call "exploration versus portrayal" isn't just "planning versus improvisation", you can have a totally improvised, totally portrayed character.

It's a question of what, for you, is the point of playing your character. Is it to react to things in character, or to make significant in-character decisions.


Exactly. This is exactly how I feel. One has a solid fleshed out concept that he role plays. The other doesn't and improvises as he goes along.

Improvisation is perfectly valid. I just feel you are dressing it up as something else. I merely felt the need to cut off the excess baggage. You saw a difference, and then tried to define it, but I feel you got far too complicated when the difference was something really simple. *Puts down Occam's Razor*

Not really.

To go back to the "you feel scared" example: here an "improviser" might be perfectly happy to include "feeling scared" into their improvisation, while a "planner" might not have planned to feel scared at this point, so object.

The distinction I'm trying to make is the difference between "acting like" your character and "authoring" your character.

Winterwind
2007-06-29, 01:20 PM
Perhaps another aspect of character is what we seem to be focusing on in this thread; being how much do you let the characters experiences change or not change thier outlook on the world. Or how you react to the world.

I don't really see that difference. The game forces evolution of the character no matter what - he meets friends, NPCs, experiences things, gains levels, possibly new abilities, new responsibilities, etc. I don't think anyone who's ever roleplayed for a decent length of time hasn't ended up with a different character than when they started.

The only real difference I see is in one case, the character's solid and fleshed out at the beginning, whereas in the second, it's more of a vague concept that solidifies over time.Unless I'm completely off, neither of the two types Dan proposed do not change in time. Of course they do. The difference is what the player's focus is - what is most fun for the player?
The Portrayal type is more concerned about giving the details of how the character acts in a particular moment, and knows fairly well who the character is at the given time (not necessarily the same character as when created). To the Explorer, the way the character acts comes much more as a surprise, and the fact a character does this or that carries much more entertainment than the adjectives used to describe the character's actions or emotional state.


@fax and winterwind
The type of "story" character you define would be a portrayal character unders Dan's system. This is because you have a pre-set situation and set of feelings and attitudes that you plan on protraying throughout the game. Even though these change, you had already decided that they will. An exploration type player would be surprised by the change, he would begin with no plan on changing, but when the circumstance to cause the change occured, he would take the character that direction, or more properly, the charcter would take the player in that direction. Yes, you're right. Should have realised that myself.

As with ALL theories of this sort, it is not a one or the other situation. It is more of a sliding scale. Also, one player can go into either camp depending on how they play EACH CHARACTER. I myself have made characters, come up with a solid background, know how they feel, act, think, etc. and then Portray that character through the events laid before him. I have also made characters with just a few simple lines of ideas and Explore who those characters are. I am actually frequently honestly surprised by the personality that comes out, and the decisions made.

I guess that the theory would be much more properly stated as there are two ends of a spectrum of types of character creation and developement. As opposed to there are two types of players.Agreed. I, too, have seen various characters created with differing approaches, and it gives quite a different feel of playing them.


I feel this distinction is not useful to discussion because it is false.

Allow me to elaborate. I would have in my earlier post, but the siren call of pizza lured me from my keyboard.

This isn't portrayal vs. exploration. This isn't actorship vs. authorship. This is planning vs. improvisation. Heck, I might be tempted to call it Law vs. Chaos.

The "explorer" isn't exploring, he is improvising. Huh. Interesting. While, basically, I am inclined to agree to the "Explorer=Improviser"-notion, I have the feeling of a subtle difference in attitude between them. Might be wrong about that, though; guess I'll just recline and watch what this debate will toss ashore. :smallcool:


EDIT:

What I call "exploration versus portrayal" isn't just "planning versus improvisation", you can have a totally improvised, totally portrayed character.

It's a question of what, for you, is the point of playing your character. Is it to react to things in character, or to make significant in-character decisions.Ah. Here we go. That's what I was thinking about.

Neon Knight
2007-06-29, 01:20 PM
In other words you are arguing the name, not the premise?

Not really. I'm claiming that his Portrayal vs. Exploration theory is a bunch of extra stuff attached to and concealing planning vs. improvisation.

If I were to write this again, I'd say "Some people like to plan their characters out. Other people like to improvise them."

Everything else he wrote is just, well, it just doesn't apply. It's personal preferences that differ form role player to role player and have no correlation with a tendency to plan out characters or a tendency to make up characters as you go.

Winterwind
2007-06-29, 01:24 PM
Everything else he wrote is just, well, it just doesn't apply. It's personal preferences that differ form role player to role player and have no correlation with a tendency to plan out characters or a tendency to make up characters as you go.Actually, I believe it's those personal preferences that are his main point.

Ulzgoroth
2007-06-29, 01:25 PM
It's a question of what, for you, is the point of playing your character. Is it to react to things in character, or to make significant in-character decisions.

The distinction I'm trying to make is the difference between "acting like" your character and "authoring" your character.
I really don't see how these are any sort of dichotomy. If you react to things in character, you make all in-character decisions. Including all the significant ones. The only way they could be separate is if you aren't ever allowed to make a significant decision, in which case it's time to visit the DM with torch and pitchfork. Similarly, 'acting like your character', meaning working out at each juncture what the character would do, seems to me to be the same thing as 'authoring' your character.

Can you expand on what makes these things different?

Counterpower
2007-06-29, 01:25 PM
You've missed half of the argument.

What I call "exploration versus portrayal" isn't just "planning versus improvisation", you can have a totally improvised, totally portrayed character.

It's a question of what, for you, is the point of playing your character. Is it to react to things in character, or to make significant in-character decisions.

What's stopping those two from happening at the same time, though? Why must they be two separate things?


Not really.

To go back to the "you feel scared" example: here an "improviser" might be perfectly happy to include "feeling scared" into their improvisation, while a "planner" might not have planned to feel scared at this point, so object.

The distinction I'm trying to make is the difference between "acting like" your character and "authoring" your character.

Well, here I'd like to say that I don't think there's an RPer anywhere that would actually have no problem with the DM telling him how to react, which I think is a slight problem with your "portrayal" archtype. Just out of curiosity though, does that distinction you're drawing mean you won't be acting like your character when you're "authoring" him?

That's my main problem with making these two separate categories: they are by no means separate at all.

Neon Knight
2007-06-29, 01:27 PM
Actually, I believe it's those personal preferences that are his main point.

But they have no correlation with the things he claims they have correlation with. That is my point.

Matthew
2007-06-29, 01:38 PM
These are really just two facets of the Roleplaying experience. You can read about other aspects in the old (A)D&D supplements and theories regarding why and how people play Roleplaying games. Puzzle Solvers, Power Gamers, Hack and Slashers, the game caters to a wide range of 'types', but people are inherently contradictory and difficult to definitively categorise.

I explore, I portray, I solve puzzles, I interact, I kill stuff, I plan, I think about moral dilemnas, I wonder about the mechanics, I make mistakes, etc...

Roleplaying is a composite whole. These two possibilities are interesting to recognise, but they are not definitive categories, nor a sliding scale, but merely facets of the whole, flaws and all.

Where we lay emphasis in theoretical discussions is interesting, but what are we going to use these tools to do? If you approach this hobby in one uniform way every time you play, you're missing out on the pleasures to be derived from other ways to play, whether that matters or not is going to differ from individual to individual.

Indon
2007-06-29, 01:58 PM
While at first, I thought the distinction was most fitting and appropriate, when I thought a bit about it, it seems more than just fuzzy. It seems that there are multiple distinctions here, each deserving its' own description, grouped into two more vague 'schools' of roleplaying.

The "Portrayer", or actor, seems to have these qualities:
-Fleshed-out character concept with lower flexibility
-Greater willingness to have character react to non-sensory input

While the "Explorer" seems to possess:
-Vaguer character with greater flexibility
-Strong preference for character reaction to sensory input only

Thus, I would put these on a two-axis system: Concept, and Sensation.
Concept is how strong and well-developed your character concept, and thus your characters' motivation, is at the beginning of play.
-Players with strong concept make characters whose reactions to many things are planned out in advance, and perhaps even have a long-term set path their character may follow.
-Players with weak concept make characters whose reactions to things _define the character_, rather than the character concept defining its' reactions.

Sensation is how vividly a player prefers to recieve their characters' experiences.
-Players with strong sensation prefer vivid sensory descriptions, and will form their characters emotions based on what those descriptions suggest.
-Players with weak sensation prefer concept-driven descriptions, and will envision the physical description of what the character sees based on what they feel.

A square for this could be:
Strong Concept, Strong Sensation:
Weak Concept, Strong Sensation: Explorer
Strong Concept, Weak Sensation: Portrayer
Weak Concept, Weak Sensation:

I leave the descriptions for the two other groups, the character-driven player who prefers his descriptions detailed and down-to-earth, and the more improvisational player who prefers to imagine what his character experiences, intentionally blank. For now.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-29, 02:39 PM
I really don't see how these are any sort of dichotomy. If you react to things in character, you make all in-character decisions. Including all the significant ones. The only way they could be separate is if you aren't ever allowed to make a significant decision, in which case it's time to visit the DM with torch and pitchfork. Similarly, 'acting like your character', meaning working out at each juncture what the character would do, seems to me to be the same thing as 'authoring' your character.

Can you expand on what makes these things different?

The difference, roughly, is this.

A Portrayer is happy as long as they can "do what their character would do." Which, as you say, you can do all the time.

An Explorer, however, is only happy when he is actually making a significant statement or discovery about the nature of his character.

To borrow an example from the "metagaming" thread, let's look at the "Fighting a Troll" example.

The "portrayer" will try to fight the troll "in-character". They will not use OOC knowledge of the Troll's weaknesses, they will describe their attacks in as IC a way as possible. They may even try to restrict inter-party strategising to IC conversation only. All of this they view as "roleplaying" - the act of portraying one's character.

The "explorer" on the other hand, won't try to "roleplay" the encounter, because to them fighting a troll is meaningless. It does not illuminate their character, or anybody else's. It's just a strategic challenge to be overcome. Very rarely, you may be given the opportunity to make a character-critical decision in combat, but it's mostly just speedbumps.

Does that help any?

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-29, 02:42 PM
Roleplaying is a composite whole. These two possibilities are interesting to recognise, but they are not definitive categories, nor a sliding scale, but merely facets of the whole, flaws and all.


Oh absolutely. I'm not Ron Edwards, I'm not trying to categorise everybody.

I was specifically attempting to explore a disconnect I've found when talking to some people about "roleplaying" (as in the "playing a role" part of it, rather than the hobby in general).

barawn
2007-06-29, 03:15 PM
The "explorer" on the other hand, won't try to "roleplay" the encounter, because to them fighting a troll is meaningless. It does not illuminate their character, or anybody else's. It's just a strategic challenge to be overcome. Very rarely, you may be given the opportunity to make a character-critical decision in combat, but it's mostly just speedbumps.

I really don't get this - if you can play a character, then you will face character-critical decisions. That's what playing a character is - facing the troll, for instance, gives the question of "am I going to stay with these people in the face of possible certain death, or flee?" "Multiple of my comrades are in danger - which do I choose to help?"

It pretty much seems just like "the explorer thinks combat is pointless" - which... doesn't seem to be a fundamental separation. Just someone who doesn't like combat.

Diggorian
2007-06-29, 03:17 PM
The "portrayer" will try to fight the troll "in-character". They will not use OOC knowledge of the Troll's weaknesses, they will describe their attacks in as IC a way as possible. They may even try to restrict inter-party strategising to IC conversation only. All of this they view as "roleplaying" - the act of portraying one's character.

The "explorer" on the other hand, won't try to "roleplay" the encounter, because to them fighting a troll is meaningless. It does not illuminate their character, or anybody else's. It's just a strategic challenge to be overcome. Very rarely, you may be given the opportunity to make a character-critical decision in combat, but it's mostly just speedbumps.

Does that help any?

Having similar difficulty seeing the dichotomy as Ulzgoroth does, this isnt helpful.

The portrayer fights the troll, but the explorer fights the troll while resenting it's existence?

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-29, 03:22 PM
Having similar difficulty seeing the dichotomy as Ulzgoroth does, this isnt helpful.

The portrayer fights the troll, but the explorer fights the troll while resenting it's existence?

The Portrayer fights the troll, and considers that to be just as much "roleplaying" as everything else they do that session.

The Explorer fights the troll, and views it as a strategic exercise.

Indon
2007-06-29, 03:23 PM
The "explorer" on the other hand, won't try to "roleplay" the encounter, because to them fighting a troll is meaningless. It does not illuminate their character, or anybody else's. It's just a strategic challenge to be overcome. Very rarely, you may be given the opportunity to make a character-critical decision in combat, but it's mostly just speedbumps.


I read that as "The explorer is not in-character unless it interests him to do so," which is not at all the vibe I got earlier.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-29, 03:24 PM
I really don't get this - if you can play a character, then you will face character-critical decisions. That's what playing a character is - facing the troll, for instance, gives the question of "am I going to stay with these people in the face of possible certain death, or flee?" "Multiple of my comrades are in danger - which do I choose to help?"

Which is great. Once.

But D&D combat is abstract, tactical, and really, really common.


It pretty much seems just like "the explorer thinks combat is pointless" - which... doesn't seem to be a fundamental separation. Just someone who doesn't like combat.

It's not that he "thinks combat is pointless" it's that he "thinks anything which does not lead directly to a meaningful decision by a player character is meaningless."

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-29, 03:25 PM
I read that as "The explorer is not in-character unless it interests him to do so," which is not at all the vibe I got earlier.

Whether the explorer remains in character or not is a side issue (an issue of portrayal).

The point is that "fighting trolls" is not what the explorer is there for.

Indon
2007-06-29, 03:28 PM
Whether the explorer remains in character or not is a side issue (an issue of portrayal).

The point is that "fighting trolls" is not what the explorer is there for.

Well, that's not really a matter of a different style of roleplay (such as I ventured to break the Explorer and Portrayer down into), as a matter of being less interested in roleplaying, and thus roleplaying less often.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-29, 03:32 PM
Well, that's not really a matter of a different style of roleplay (such as I ventured to break the Explorer and Portrayer down into), as a matter of being less interested in roleplaying, and thus roleplaying less often.

And this is *exactly* the distinction I was trying to make.

When you say "roleplaying" you mean what I refer to above as "portrayal".

To the portrayer "I valiently swing my greataxe towards the beast's midrif" is "roleplaying" whereas "I Power Attack for +3 and hit AC 18" isn't.

To the Explorer, though, neither one of those is roleplaying.

barawn
2007-06-29, 03:37 PM
But D&D combat is abstract, tactical, and really, really common.

Ah. That's the difference. In the D&D games I play, combat is not common, nor really abstract, and in general, not that tactical either.

Like I said - I don't really see the difference. The "explorer" just doesn't like chess-style combat. Which is fine. But in some sense, you're presuming that D&D combat has to work like that.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-29, 03:39 PM
Ah. That's the difference. In the D&D games I play, combat is not common, nor really abstract, and in general, not that tactical either.

When you say "not common" what do you mean exactly?

HidaTsuzua
2007-06-29, 03:48 PM
Exactly. This is exactly how I feel. One has a solid fleshed out concept that he role plays. The other doesn't and improvises as he goes along.

Improvisation is perfectly valid. I just feel you are dressing it up as something else. I merely felt the need to cut off the excess baggage. You saw a difference, and then tried to define it, but I feel you got far too complicated when the difference was something really simple. *Puts down Occam's Razor*

I do agree that the OP distinctions aren't useful as they have too much thrown together. However I think there are two distinctions mentioned in the OP. How much planning a character receives during creations and freedom a player expects from the GM.

The major difference I can see right off the bat with planning differences is expectation. A pre-planned character has certain things laid before them while an improvised one does not.

An example is "Horaldo the Dashing Duelist and Womanizer" vs "Horaldo." The former is a pre-planned character who in viewed by the Player as Dashing, a duelist and a womanizer. The latter is improvised. The first comes with the expectation by the player to be dashing, a duelist, and a womanizer. Due to the way the game is run or how Horaldo is played/made, he could any of those three or more. But there will likely be inertia to change from the concept. The improvised Horaldo doesn't have this baggage and might become something else (such as an illusionist or con-artist) or be just like the pre-made character. The problem is that Horaldo risks of just floundering with nothing worthwhile for himself in terms of traits. Depending on the campaign and players, either or both approaches work. I tend to favor improvisation for long term sit down games. The pre-planning works better for me for PbP games.

I also feel that combat is one of the best times to roleplay. How your character acts and interacts with the rules is a great source of roleplaying potential. Why would fighting a dragon bring out less in a person than talking to a random guard? Maybe this is a problem with D&D (and many other games) with its lack of worthwhile variety in combats, that individual differences can't be expressed without shooting yourself in the foot. If this is case, there's likely a problem with the rules (likely with the too many choices min/max dilemma).

For the purposes for the metagaming discussion, this distinction doesn't really matter. The other one "how much freedom does the player expect from the DM" is. A lot of the debate in the metagame thread is based on this. Can and should a DM say "your character doesn't know that," backgrounds, telling the players "you are scared," and the like. Different opinions lead to different answers. This isn't a sliding bar but different traits about what is acceptable exist.

Diggorian
2007-06-29, 04:03 PM
To the portrayer "I valiently swing my greataxe towards the beast's midrif" is "roleplaying" whereas "I Power Attack for +3 and hit AC 18" isn't.

To the Explorer, though, neither one of those is roleplaying.

So "roleplaying" for the explorer is strictly about characterization exposition?

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-29, 04:05 PM
An example is "Horaldo the Dashing Duelist and Womanizer" vs "Horaldo." The former is a pre-planned character who in viewed by the Player as Dashing, a duelist and a womanizer. The latter is improvised. The first comes with the expectation by the player to be dashing, a duelist, and a womanizer. Due to the way the game is run or how Horaldo is played/made, he could any of those three or more. But there will likely be inertia to change from the concept. The improvised Horaldo doesn't have this baggage and might become something else (such as an illusionist or con-artist) or be just like the pre-made character. The problem is that Horaldo risks of just floundering with nothing worthwhile for himself in terms of traits. Depending on the campaign and players, either or both approaches work. I tend to favor improvisation for long term sit down games. The pre-planning works better for me for PbP games.

Actually, it's more like:

I am playing "Horaldo, dashing duelist and womanizer." After a couple of sessions, I realise that Horaldo has been doing much less womanizing than I expected. So I retroactively remove the "womanizer" trait from his personality, and I mentally edit out the "long list of conquests" from his personal history, because they no longer make sense to me as fitting the character as I now understand him.


I also feel that combat is one of the best times to roleplay. How your character acts and interacts with the rules is a great source of roleplaying potential. Why would fighting a dragon bring out less in a person than talking to a random guard? Maybe this is a problem with D&D (and many other games) with its lack of worthwhile variety in combats, that individual differences can't be expressed without shooting yourself in the foot. If this is case, there's likely a problem with the rules (likely with the too many choices min/max dilemma).

There's two issues here.

Firstly, you're dead right that fighting a dragon brings out less in a person than talking to a random guard, but the point is that to the Explorer (that is to say, to me) neither fighting the dragon nor talking to the guard are really "roleplaying".

Or, more precisely, the basic act of roleplaying lies in the decision to fight the dragon, and the decision to talk to the guard. The rest is flavour text and strategy.

barawn
2007-06-29, 04:31 PM
When you say "not common" what do you mean exactly?

Combat usually only happens maybe once every two or three gaming sessions. In terms of in world time, maybe once every few days. Having it be too common does exactly what you're talking about - it jades the players.

barawn
2007-06-29, 04:36 PM
To the portrayer "I valiently swing my greataxe towards the beast's midrif" is "roleplaying" whereas "I Power Attack for +3 and hit AC 18" isn't.

To the Explorer, though, neither one of those is roleplaying.

Beh? It's descriptive fluff. Roleplaying is playing a role, by definition. Using fancy words isn't role playing.

During combat, a character still has emotions and thoughts: fear, anticipation, anger, rage, love, hatred. Role playing is remembering those, and not reducing combat to something clinical.

LotharBot
2007-06-29, 04:44 PM
I think I'm finally starting to get what the OP was getting at:

To the "portrayer", whatever action the party is undertaking is interesting from what they call an RP perspective. Whether fighting a troll, talking to a commoner, or sneaking around in a dungeon, they speak of character actions in a descriptive way. They want to describe their flaming sword hitting the troll in the belly and searing the flesh there, or speak to the commoner using an accent and period vocabulary, or describe slipping quietly around a corner while pressed up against the wall. They consider describing character actions to be the core element of "role-playing", and they consider anyone who doesn't describe character actions in this way to be a "roll-player".

To the "explorer" who is not also a "portrayer" (one can be both!), many of those actions aren't interesting from what they call an RP perspective. They don't much care about describing how their sword hits the troll, or talking in an accent, or describing exactly what process they're using to be sneaky. What matters to them is that their character is the sort to stand in front when fighting a troll, or the sort to ask a random passer-by a question, or the sort to sneak around quietly. They view descriptions as fluff, and decisions as important -- they view decisions as the core element of "role-playing", and they consider anyone who doesn't make decisions that match their character's established personality to be "metagaming".

This is not a dichotomy; it's merely a pair of possible things people might be seeking from role-playing. There are those who consider BOTH to be important aspects of role-playing (explorer-portrayers), and those who consider NEITHER important (just going for the mechanics.) You might be the sort who considers it important to describe your actions vividly, but would be willing to have external cues like DM-mandated fear guide them. You might be the sort who considers it important to make decisions according to a particular personality and wouldn't tolerate DM mandates, but don't care how exactly your action plays out. You might think both vivid descriptions and in-character decisions matter. Or you might not think either are important. In any case, the danger is that you'll think less of those who don't do the same -- that you'll call people "roll-players" or "metagamers" because they don't give a dramatic description of how they swing their sword, or you'll call them "metagamers" because they make a decision based on gameplay mechanics that isn't what you expect from their character personality-wise. (This does explain at least some of the conflict in the previous thread!)

I'd like to thank the OP for posting this. It was enlightening to me to think about. I think all of my party members are strong explorers, with one also being a strong portrayer and the rest being fairly minor portrayers. Exploration-wise, everyone plays their characters according to a particular personality, even at the expense of game mechanics. The dwarf would much rather spider-climb than fly; the cleric favors light-based spells and doesn't use poison or curse-type spells; the ranger aggressively targets his favored enemies even if they're lesser threats; the wizard spends a lot of money on rare books that have no mechanical benefit; the rogue always hits the bars looking for chicks even though it sometimes makes him a ripe target for ambushes; the barbarian sometimes smashes stuff the rest of the party wants to capture alive. Everybody has a well-defined personality. Portrayal-wise, the rogue and ranger occasionally describe where attacks are directed (throat, kidneys, etc.) especially when flanking; the wizard occasionally gives in-character descriptions of spells; the barbarian, our one strong portrayer, very often talks in a "stupid orc" accent and makes funny faces while saying "him confusing, but seem bad. Grokk smash." Everyone in the party is role-playing, but not everyone does it the same way or with the same emphasis.

Diggorian
2007-06-29, 04:47 PM
During combat, a character still has emotions and thoughts: fear, anticipation, anger, rage, love, hatred. Role playing is remembering those, and not reducing combat to something clinical.

Agreed.

Not only their feelings but also their tactics (how they uniquely take down a foe) can define a PC as well.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-29, 04:59 PM
Combat usually only happens maybe once every two or three gaming sessions. In terms of in world time, maybe once every few days. Having it be too common does exactly what you're talking about - it jades the players.

That's sort of what I figured.

By my standards that's common. Bordering on frequent.

barawn
2007-06-29, 05:00 PM
Agreed.

Not only their feelings but also their tactics (how they uniquely take down a foe) can define a PC as well.

Absolutely. Which is why I just absolutely don't understand the distinction at all. Every moment of every day defines me - and in a battle for my life, that's sure as heck going to define me! Treating combat as a plodding "requirement" of D&D just... doesn't seem right.

The character can die in combat. They're going to be scared. If they're half dying, they might reveal something that they wouldn't normally reveal. If they're carrying a personal quest, they'll try to pass it on.

barawn
2007-06-29, 05:01 PM
That's sort of what I figured.

By my standards that's common. Bordering on frequent.

By D&D standards, it's incredibly rare. I think your main problem is with D&D combat.

Demented
2007-06-29, 06:06 PM
Lotharbot iterated the two very clearly, and demonstrated that they are independent axes, rather than opposites.

Knowing this, if you think about it, there are actually parallels between roleplaying and writing a character...
Compare the "Portrayal" and "Exploration" axes with Round/Flat and the Dynamic/Static (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictional_character#Round_vs._flat) axes.

Neon Knight
2007-06-29, 06:53 PM
I think I'm finally starting to get what the OP was getting at:

Whole lotta stuff that makes sense.



I guess I just had one of those "duh!" moments. If this is what the OP was getting at, then I misunderstand him greatly.

I'll just say I'm with LotharBot. What he said makes a great deal of sense.

Damionte
2007-06-29, 07:12 PM
. As opposed to there are two types of players.

@ Diamonte
That would also be considered portrayal rp'ing under Dan's system, because if you are playing a "pre-defined" set of moral codes, attitudes and personalities, you have already explored the character (you) and are protraying him through diffrent situations. In your case you are near the middle of the spectrum though as it sounds like you explore your reactions and unless I miss my guess, you have learned things about yourself through play.

That is very true. I have to admit that over the years D&D has proven to be very good therapy. I not only play myself in these various situations I am usually very honest with the way I play myself and react to the game situations. I've gotten to see, and my friends have gotten to see how I think and make decisions.

For instance, though I began playing as a kid with these high moral ideas on how a hero should be, I really am not that guy all the time. I am not superman. I am now Lawful/Good. I've met people who are lawful good but I am not they.

I am more akin to Chaotic/Good. I adventure for the fun of it, but will not take extraordinary risks if I don't think I can get out of it. I will help the helpless but for the selfish reason that it makes me feel good. Not nessesarily because they just needed the help. I don't care much for the law. I'll even break my personal belief system if i believe I've discovered a better or easier way to do something.

I'm like that in real life as well. Though I would never have discovered it had I not played D&D and been able to explore those aspects of msyelf as I met varied moral situations in game. Situations that realyl made me stop and think. "Wait so what WOULD I do in this situation."

Thinking back I can't honestly say I've played with too many people who are portayalists the way the OP describes them.


I think I'm finally starting to get what the OP was getting at:

To the "portrayer", whatever action the party is undertaking is interesting from what they call an RP perspective. Whether fighting a troll, talking to a commoner, or sneaking around in a dungeon, they speak of character actions in a descriptive way. They want to describe their flaming sword hitting the troll in the belly and searing the flesh there, or speak to the commoner using an accent and period vocabulary, or describe slipping quietly around a corner while pressed up against the wall. They consider describing character actions to be the core element of "role-playing", and they consider anyone who doesn't describe character actions in this way to be a "roll-player".

To the "explorer" who is not also a "portrayer" (one can be both!), many of those actions aren't interesting from what they call an RP perspective. They don't much care about describing how their sword hits the troll, or talking in an accent, or describing exactly what process they're using to be sneaky. What matters to them is that their character is the sort to stand in front when fighting a troll, or the sort to ask a random passer-by a question, or the sort to sneak around quietly. They view descriptions as fluff, and decisions as important -- they view decisions as the core element of "role-playing", and they consider anyone who doesn't make decisions that match their character's established personality to be "metagaming".


Those definitions make more sense to me though. THAT discription I can understand, and see at work at our own table.

At our own table, I am a hybrid, we have a couple of Portayal players. Our current DM is definately an explorer.

don't know if I'd use these terms to discribe these RP characteristics though. since I don't currently have any better idea .......

Ulzgoroth
2007-06-29, 07:18 PM
LotharBot makes much sense. Though it seems to me like more a spin-off than an interpretation of the OP...I'm fairly sure there are contradictions between the two.

I still can't quite fathom the perspective that any sort of character decision, be it where you stand in combat or what you order for dinner, is meaningless. The precise details of description may or may not mean anything, but every voluntary action is worth a moment's thought.

Jannex
2007-06-29, 07:22 PM
Looks like I'm getting to the party late.


During combat, a character still has emotions and thoughts: fear, anticipation, anger, rage, love, hatred. Role playing is remembering those, and not reducing combat to something clinical.

I agree completely and passionately. Things that happen in combat can have profound effects on a character, and the way she responds to them reveal a great deal about where she's coming from. What happens if a fighter sees his girlfriend take an arrow in the throat on a critical hit, and start bleeding out? Does he break away from the orc he's fighting, leaving the rogue he's flanking with to fend for himself, to protect her? I recall one fight where my character and the other PCs had gone to a house to meet our contact, and discovered him killed. We find his assistant and start talking to him, but a pair of thri-kreen show up to try to capture us (we were sort of outlaws... it's a long story). For the first part of the fight, my character was trying her best to guard the assistant (a non-combatant), but when it reached the point where she was the only PC still in the house, and was more than outmatched by the two thri-kreen, she had to make a tough decision. A couple of times previously in the campaign, she'd found herself captured and in someone else's power, and she'd come to hate it with a fiery passion. She was not about to be held prisoner again. She went for the window. She felt guilty about it afterwards, despite telling herself that the thri-kreen weren't after the assistant, but it was just something she couldn't face. I hadn't realized until that moment how strongly she felt about captivity, and it was interesting. It was ALSO interesting, afterwards, playing out her guilt and regret for having to leave behind the man she'd taken it upon herself to try and protect.

That's my problem with the OP's description--I'm having a hard time seeing "Portrayer" and "Explorer" as mutually exclusive, or even being two extremes on the same axis. There are aspects of the OP's description of both points with which I identify, and with which I don't. I think, as other people have said (notably Indon, who framed them as a grid, but others as well), that what's at work here is actually two axes with their own sliding scales.

Here's how I approach roleplaying: For most games (especially those that I anticipate will go on long enough to allow me to get invested in the character), I come up with a bit of background history and personality for my character--sort of a "The story so far..." that describes her family life, any friends or personal connections she may have, the influences that led her to cultivate the personality traits she expresses at Game Start, and her general attitudes and motivations. These details will shape her stats as well.

After Game Start, of course, the character will encounter new situations and people that will almost undoubtedly affect and change her, often in ways that I, as the player, did not anticipate. I can recall one occasion where a character of mine suddenly began to fall in love with a (previously minor) NPC; this came as something of a shock, since I'd sort of vaguely expected her to get back together with the ex-boyfriend I'd written into her backstory. However, I'm not one to argue with my characters, so I went with it, and it was really interesting and dramatic, and the tension later on when she met up with her ex (who had, meanwhile, turned evil) was a lot of fun.

At the same time, though, these changes themselves are only half the battle. If the decisions a character makes and the subsequent changes they affect on her aren't evident in some way through how I "act" the character, I feel like those decisions are cheapened and meaningless. Choices have consequences, and portraying those consequences is as important as making the choices that gave rise to them. To me, roleplaying means BOTH of these things. Some of the most enjoyable roleplaying I've done has involved quiet conversations between two characters in the aftermath of an intense experience, as they discussed their reactions, thoughts, and feelings, and speculated on the future implications.

Regarding what I think a DM/GM has the right to tell a player about his character's reactions, if the character is subject to a magical effect, that's fair game. The DM has the right to say that the effect affects the character (assuming a failed save, etc.) and what the extent and limitations of the effect are. Within that, the specifics of a character's reaction is up to the player, based on how they understand the character to react to that stimulus. "The wizard makes arcane gestures, and you feel a wave of profound terror wash over you as his spell wraps itself around your mind" is okay; "the ogre growls at you, and you loosen your bowels with fear" is not.

Given that these are my general preferences and positions, I'm not sure how to classify myself according to the OP's rubric. Parts of both categories seem to apply, and parts of both do not.

Edit:

I still can't quite fathom the perspective that any sort of character decision, be it where you stand in combat or what you order for dinner, is meaningless. The precise details of description may or may not mean anything, but every voluntary action is worth a moment's thought.

I agree completely.

Saph
2007-06-29, 08:09 PM
Yeah, to be honest, the more I read about this theory of Dan's, the less sense it makes.

Roleplaying requires both portraying and exploring a character. Pretty much everyone who cares anything at all about RPing does both. And once you've got a developed character, you pretty much have to do both. If you only portray your character and never let him change, he's going to quickly become static and boring (not to mention dead, if he can't adapt to the world). If you only explore your character and never try and portray him or take his background into account, he's not going to be a character - he'll be a collection of random actions determined by what mood you happened to be in at the time.

I've played with characters of both types. The first type is the "Look At Me" character, where the player comes up with a character concept and plays it exactly as he first envisaged, even when it makes no sense (eg playing the solitary antisocial loner when you're working in a team). The second is the "Chaotic Stupid" character, where the player does whatever he feels like with no regard to background, plausibility, or the other players.

In the first case the character is completely static and never changes, in the second the character never stops changing. In either case, they're pretty much impossible to relate to.

- Saph

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-30, 09:29 AM
LotharBot makes much sense. Though it seems to me like more a spin-off than an interpretation of the OP...I'm fairly sure there are contradictions between the two.

I still can't quite fathom the perspective that any sort of character decision, be it where you stand in combat or what you order for dinner, is meaningless. The precise details of description may or may not mean anything, but every voluntary action is worth a moment's thought.

It's meaningless from a character perspective.

If I choose to move into a flanking position in combat, that is a purely strategic decision which I am making in order to improve the chances of our party winning the fight.

Now I might *justify* that in-character, but that does not make it a character decision.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-30, 09:33 AM
Yeah, to be honest, the more I read about this theory of Dan's, the less sense it makes.

Roleplaying requires both portraying and exploring a character. Pretty much everyone who cares anything at all about RPing does both. And once you've got a developed character, you pretty much have to do both. If you only portray your character and never let him change, he's going to quickly become static and boring (not to mention dead, if he can't adapt to the world). If you only explore your character and never try and portray him or take his background into account, he's not going to be a character - he'll be a collection of random actions determined by what mood you happened to be in at the time.

I'm not sure how that follows.

Going back to Horaldo: How is "Horaldo the womanizer" less of a character than "Horaldo who is not a womanizer, even though that is how I originally imagined him being?"

Again, the distinction is not between "people who only portray their characters" and "people who only explore their characters", but rather between "people for whom the primary act of roleplaying is portrayal" and "people for whom the primary act of roleplaying is exploration."


I've played with characters of both types. The first type is the "Look At Me" character, where the player comes up with a character concept and plays it exactly as he first envisaged, even when it makes no sense (eg playing the solitary antisocial loner when you're working in a team). The second is the "Chaotic Stupid" character, where the player does whatever he feels like with no regard to background, plausibility, or the other players.

In the first case the character is completely static and never changes, in the second the character never stops changing. In either case, they're pretty much impossible to relate to.


Why is it impossible to relate to a character, just because they don't adhere to a pre-written description?

Damionte
2007-06-30, 12:55 PM
Why is it impossible to relate to a character, just because they don't adhere to a pre-written description?

That's not what he said. He's talking about a character that is uneffected by his environment. His background is only fraction of the characters environment. Though.... not having a background does make a character a little difficult to relate too. You don't where the character has been which makes it a little difficult to filter his decisions on where he's going. You end up playing the character on whatever your current whim is. Not that it's entirely a bad thing.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-30, 02:46 PM
That's not what he said. He's talking about a character that is uneffected by his environment. His background is only fraction of the characters environment. Though.... not having a background does make a character a little difficult to relate too. You don't where the character has been which makes it a little difficult to filter his decisions on where he's going. You end up playing the character on whatever your current whim is. Not that it's entirely a bad thing.

You see, I genuinely don't believe that this is the case.

To me it's just as valid to say "given the way this character acts, it seems probable that his background is something like this" as it is to say "given this character's background, this is how we can presume he will act."

I'm not saying that a character shouldn't have a consistent personality, merely that there is no need to decide on that personality ahead of time.

Counterpower
2007-06-30, 04:16 PM
I still don't understand why RPing and combat have to be separate, even for an explorer. Obviously, not every move you make is going to be an important decision for your character. That doesn't mean that there will never be important decisions that develop your character in combat situations either. Jannex provided an excellent example of a situation where her character developed in the midst of a merciless battle.

Another example of that kind of thing can be found in one of the Gaming articles here (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html). It's the 7th paragraph.

And Saph did say he couldn't relate to a Chaotic Stupid personality that never stopped changing, and so didn't have any kind of consistent personality.

Fax Celestis
2007-06-30, 04:21 PM
I still don't understand why RPing and combat have to be separate, even for an explorer.

Because combat--despite being a venue for role-play--is not a valid outlet for a good many kinds of characters. Further, you don't get to decide your own actions: the dice do.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-30, 04:33 PM
I still don't understand why RPing and combat have to be separate, even for an explorer. Obviously, not every move you make is going to be an important decision for your character. That doesn't mean that there will never be important decisions that develop your character in combat situations either. Jannex provided an excellent example of a situation where her character developed in the midst of a merciless battle.

They don't have to be, but they frequently are in D&D, because the combat system in D&D is designed to promote strategic, not character based decisions.

And as Fax points out, a lot of the time your actions are dictated by dice rather than choice.

Again, we're using different definitions of "roleplaying".

To take a specific scenario:

You're in combat with a group of orcs, and one breaks away from the main group and goes for the party Wizard.

Your Barbarian leaves combat, drawing an attack of opportunity, in order to attack the Orc which has targeted the Wizard.

Now to a portrayer, this is a valid roleplaying opportunity. You get to roleplay your character's concern for his friend, his willingness to place himself in danger to protect the life of his companion.

To an explorer, though, it isn't a valid roleplaying opportunity, because the decision is being forced on you by the strategic system. You get to decide why your character protects the wizard, but you don't really get to decide whether your character protects the Wizard. Or rather, you do get to decide, but both decisions are not equal under the system.

Does that make sense?

Counterpower
2007-06-30, 04:42 PM
Because combat--despite being a venue for role-play--is not a valid outlet for a good many kinds of characters. Further, you don't get to decide your own actions: the dice do.

It depends on the situation. A random encounter with a wandering monster probably doesn't have any important decisions, but situations like the two examples given do, don't they? Also, did you mean to say the dice determine the outcome of your actions? Because I still control what my character does in combat; I don't randomly decide my actions with a die roll.

Dan: I see where you're coming from. I don't think something as simple as that is necessarily a good example, although I would argue that you do, indeed, have the choice to hang the wizard out to dry. The wizard's player may never forgive you, but if you think your character concept fits better with a person who.... well, for whatever reason wouldn't go help him, then there isn't anything stopping you from ignoring the problem.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-30, 04:51 PM
Dan: I see where you're coming from. I don't think something as simple as that is necessarily a good example, although I would argue that you do, indeed, have the choice to hang the wizard out to dry. The wizard's player may never forgive you, but if you think your character concept fits better with a person who.... well, for whatever reason wouldn't go help him, then there isn't anything stopping you from ignoring the problem.

There's a whole lot of things stopping you from ignoring the problem, chief among them the fact that the wizard's player may never forgive you.

And that's sort of the issue really. The example with the Samurai is similar. If you read further down the article, Rich says this:


A caveat, however: if you decide to play a character who takes risks or acts rashly, you should let yourself get talked out of it from time to time by the more level-headed characters. Isawa, for example, often suggested wildly inappropriate courses of action, which the far more cautious paladin Adhemar would convince me to not enact. Throwing caution to the wind is fun once in a while, but if done during every encounter, it gets annoying to the other players.

If I hang the Wizard out to dry, he might get killed, and that would be crappy for his player. So now the choice isn't "is my character willing to risk his life for another person", it's "am I willing to risk my character taking some damage in order to keep another PC alive."

Fax Celestis
2007-06-30, 04:58 PM
It depends on the situation. A random encounter with a wandering monster probably doesn't have any important decisions, but situations like the two examples given do, don't they? Also, did you mean to say the dice determine the outcome of your actions? Because I still control what my character does in combat; I don't randomly decide my actions with a die roll.

The point is, though, you don't say, "I kill the bad guy." You say, "I attack the bad guy," and roll some dice to see if you hit.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-30, 05:02 PM
The point is, though, you don't say, "I kill the bad guy." You say, "I attack the bad guy," and roll some dice to see if you hit.

And, perhaps more importantly, you don't say "I momentarily lose control of myself and kill my brother," you say "I attack my brother."

Counterpower
2007-06-30, 05:11 PM
There's a whole lot of things stopping you from ignoring the problem, chief among them the fact that the wizard's player may never forgive you.

Honestly, I should never have drawn myself into the trap of actually arguing your example, because I still believe it was a bad one. That said though. That seems like a good argument to not play a person who would ignore his fellow adventurers.


And that's sort of the issue really. The example with the Samurai is similar. If you read further down the article, Rich says this:

How........ is it similar? To me, the situation with the samurai is a good example of an important decision in a combat situation. When the issue with the traps was revealed, he would have been well within his rights to develop his character as a more cautious person, slowing down and checking for more traps. He instead decided that his character would be much more reckless, and decided to heedlessly advance. Is there something I'm missing about your exploration theory that changes the situation here?


If I hang the Wizard out to dry, he might get killed, and that would be crappy for his player. So now the choice isn't "is my character willing to risk his life for another person", it's "am I willing to risk my character taking some damage in order to keep another PC alive."

Are you willing to risk your character to keep another PC alive? That sounds like a fairly important part of your character's personality. Is he going to help his party mates, even at the cost of taking a hit?


The point is, though, you don't say, "I kill the bad guy." You say, "I attack the bad guy," and roll some dice to see if you hit.

Wait, there's a difference between those two? Do you decide to attack the bad guy but not kill him? Are you going to not attack him at all? Are you going to do your best to kill him, by attacking? Why can't it be a revelation about your character, in some circumstances, to decide to kill someone?

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-30, 05:25 PM
Honestly, I should never have drawn myself into the trap of actually arguing your example, because I still believe it was a bad one. That said though. That seems like a good argument to not play a person who would ignore his fellow adventurers.

But that's the point.

The system (and by "system" here I include the non-mechanical aspects of the system, like the adventuring party) discourages me from making particular in-character decisions. By doing so it removes my ability to meaningfully "roleplay" my character.


How........ is it similar? To me, the situation with the samurai is a good example of an important decision in a combat situation. When the issue with the traps was revealed, he would have been well within his rights to develop his character as a more cautious person, slowing down and checking for more traps. He instead decided that his character would be much more reckless, and decided to heedlessly advance. Is there something I'm missing about your exploration theory that changes the situation here?

But he also says that in other situations he allowed the restrictions of the system to urge him towards caution.

Charging across the traps was a moment of "exploration". Letting the other characters talk you out of reckless action later on is "portrayal."


Are you willing to risk your character to keep another PC alive? That sounds like a fairly important part of your character's personality. Is he going to help his party mates, even at the cost of taking a hit?

It's not got anything to do with my character's personality, though, and that's the point. It's a strategic decision. Now I can still "roleplay" it. I can say "my character hurries to save his friend" or "my character grudgingly goes to defend the wizard, knowing that he still has uses for the snivelling little worm", but that's all portrayal, not exploration, because I have not been given the freedom to make the decision in-character.


Wait, there's a difference between those two? Do you decide to attack the bad guy but not kill him? Are you going to not attack him at all? Are you going to do your best to kill him, by attacking? Why can't it be a revelation about your character, in some circumstances, to decide to kill someone?

Because you're not deciding to kill that person, you're deciding to attack them. Those are different things.

If my character is arguing with his brother, and his temper snaps and he goes for him with a knife, whether my character winds up a murderer is dictated by a combat system that was never designed to handle that kind of situation.

Ulzgoroth
2007-06-30, 05:29 PM
To an explorer, though, it isn't a valid roleplaying opportunity, because the decision is being forced on you by the strategic system. You get to decide why your character protects the wizard, but you don't really get to decide whether your character protects the Wizard. Or rather, you do get to decide, but both decisions are not equal under the system.

Does that make sense?
Not so much, I'd say. Doing the tactically optimal thing is not necessarily the in-character choice. Maybe the barbarian expects his allies to look out for themselves, or isn't willing to walk away from an enemy while they're still standing. Maybe, improved evasion or no, the wizard isn't willing to lay down a fireball with the rogue inside it.

Unless you consider there to be something special and separate about combat decisions, saying that you can't play them by character rather than by optimal tactics is little different than saying that everyone should be either a batman wizard, a THF CZilla, or Dzilla.


If my character is arguing with his brother, and his temper snaps and he goes for him with a knife, whether my character winds up a murderer is dictated by a combat system that was never designed to handle that kind of situation.
What do you mean by that? Where does the D&D system fall down, other than your desire to have control over something that really is in the hands of random chance?

If your character snaps and tries to kill someone with a knife, it makes perfect sense to me that you can't be certain of the outcome. Whether or not you actually succeed in killing your brother in a rage doesn't say anything about your character, though it'll influence them in the future. The character who flails and inflicts a nasty but non-lethal flesh wound is the same character as the one who catches him right in the neck and kills him instantly. But between the character who keeps cutting until his victim stops moving and the one who snaps out of it at the sight of his brother bleeding...there there's likely a difference. And you do control that choice...

Jannex
2007-06-30, 06:13 PM
But that's the point.

The system (and by "system" here I include the non-mechanical aspects of the system, like the adventuring party) discourages me from making particular in-character decisions. By doing so it removes my ability to meaningfully "roleplay" my character.

In real life you are discouraged by the situation from making particular decisions, but I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that this removes your ability to "meaningfully be yourself." Heck, in real life, despite being so discouraged, many people make those suboptimal decisions ANYWAY, and then deal with the consequences of their actions. I'm not sure why a roleplaying character's actions have to be consequence-free in order for a person to be able to roleplay meaningfully. Heck, I'd argue that having consequences makes the roleplaying more meaningful, because then the choices the character makes matter.

Fax Celestis
2007-06-30, 06:16 PM
Wait, there's a difference between those two? Do you decide to attack the bad guy but not kill him? Are you going to not attack him at all? Are you going to do your best to kill him, by attacking? Why can't it be a revelation about your character, in some circumstances, to decide to kill someone?

Yes. You're not guaranteed of killing him, regardless of whether or not it makes any sort of sense.

Counterpower
2007-06-30, 06:27 PM
But that's the point.

The system (and by "system" here I include the non-mechanical aspects of the system, like the adventuring party) discourages me from making particular in-character decisions. By doing so it removes my ability to meaningfully "roleplay" my character.

Unless there is a magical effect forcing you to do a certain thing, you are always in control of your actions. If your character needs to decide whether or not to save another PC, isn't "the rest of the party's going to be mad if I don't" something they should take into account?


But he also says that in other situations he allowed the restrictions of the system to urge him towards caution.

Charging across the traps was a moment of "exploration". Letting the other characters talk you out of reckless action later on is "portrayal."

To me, they both look like exploration. He first decided that his character was reckless when it came to personal danger. Later, he decided that his character wasn't so reckless as to ignore the advice of his companions. Both of those sound like meaningful decisions that helped define the samurai's personality.


It's not got anything to do with my character's personality, though, and that's the point. It's a strategic decision. Now I can still "roleplay" it. I can say "my character hurries to save his friend" or "my character grudgingly goes to defend the wizard, knowing that he still has uses for the snivelling little worm", but that's all portrayal, not exploration, because I have not been given the freedom to make the decision in-character.

So all of your characters are very strategic when it comes to combat? That sounds something like an aspect of their personality to me. If I was DMing, and my characters made decisions in combat that made them less effective, I'd make allowances for that, since I like to encourage RPing, of any type.

Dareon
2007-07-01, 09:10 AM
I'm still not getting the distinction or why it's an apparent dichotomy, partially because of contradictions introduced during discussions.

Just making points as I think of them here...


If my character is arguing with his brother, and his temper snaps and he goes for him with a knife, whether my character winds up a murderer is dictated by a combat system that was never designed to handle that kind of situation.
No it's not. Unless you're both first-level, the chance of a dagger doing enough damage to even drop your brother to 0 is astronomically low. Since I would assume that, by previous arguments, you're a portrayer, I would also assume your character is already decided as not being a murderer. Otherwise you'd be going after him with a greatsword or Finger of Death or something.

Otherwise, if you want to roleplay attacking your brother in a fit of rage, do it. Roleplay it. Don't even touch the dice. Just because there's a rule for attacking someone with a weapon, you don't need to use it.

As an example, my Warlock recently got into a fistfight with the party ranger. We had established ahead of time that there was no way for my character to actually win the fight, and actually using mechanics would mean the fight would be likely to end before we could get out the development we wanted. We'd still refer to mechanical actions just for reference, but whether or not they succeeded was up to us.

"I'm going for a trip."
"That succeeds, my character lands on the floor in a cloud of dust, then scrambles back to his feet. My character feints, then bull rushes."
"Both succeed."
"My character shifts his gaze to over your shoulder and says "Stay out of this, it's just between us." He then tucks his shoulder and slams into your gut."
"Distracted by looking over his shoulder, my character stumbles backwards as you rush."
(Paraphrased for simplicity's sake)

It ended with the ranger running off for a solo adventure and my character with an unspecified amount of nonlethal damage that he slept off, plus some bruises and a dislocated shoulder that made for roleplay points over the next few game days. And everyone was happy. Well, the players and DM, anyway. Our characters were angry and in pain, respectively.

Moving along...

I can say "my character hurries to save his friend" or "my character grudgingly goes to defend the wizard, knowing that he still has uses for the snivelling little worm", but that's all portrayal, not exploration, because I have not been given the freedom to make the decision in-character.
Of course you have the freedom. You can easily say "Gorthak Skullsplitter not save little man in dress!" because Gorthak Skullsplitter is Gorthak Skullsplitter, and not some nebulous concept controlling his actions that needs to worry about the reactions of other nebulous concepts that are controlling other people. Gorthak Skullsplitter also not need worry about other people's reactions, because Gorthak Skullsplitter is mighty! MIGHTY!

Also, I'd tend to argue against the "portrayer" role even existing, since it is not humanly possible to figure out in advance how your character will react to every single situation a DM can throw at you, because he will surprise you.

And just HOW does an explorer NOT see combat as an exploratory opportunity? If your DM isn't throwing interesting challenges at you, well, I hate to criticize another DM's style without them being there to learn about it, but that's definitely suboptimal.

I don't know, maybe the problem stems from either too much or not enough separation between combat and noncombat, or mechanics and roleplay. But if you're not roleplaying during combat, whatever roleplaying means to you, you're missing out on a LOT.

Jayabalard
2007-07-01, 10:14 AM
Everyone's an exploratory Roleplayer; some people think that their player is totally in control of the character and some people think that there are things in the world that are outside the player's control.

Cyborg Pirate
2007-07-01, 10:57 AM
Everyone's an exploratory Roleplayer; some people think that their player is totally in control of the character and some people think that there are things in the world that are outside the player's control.

I take issue with this statement, as I know many people who are Not exploratory roleplayers. I myself however am one. My characters take on a life of their own, and I enjoy this.

PinkysBrain
2007-07-01, 11:15 AM
Exploration Roleplayers are, I think, much less easygoing than Portrayal Roleplayers, because they have their own very definite ideas about how they want their characters to be, and the situations they want to roleplay them in. Where a Portrayal Roleplayer, like an actor, thrives on the challenge of a difficult role
Or a difficult roll for that matter, if you can't accept rolls will determine what happens to your character to a certain extent (such as failing your save against a fear effect) you are going to have a very tough time with any RPG short of shared storytelling (even then you give away some control).

In the extreme case these guys just want to write a book I guess?

Cyborg Pirate
2007-07-01, 11:53 AM
In the extreme case these guys just want to write a book I guess?

Speaking for myself, I can say: Yep. I like to run my character like I write characters for a book. Which means: Basic outline, but very subject to chage as I explore the character during the course of the story. And I also am writing a book :smalltongue:

Dan_Hemmens
2007-07-01, 04:42 PM
Unless there is a magical effect forcing you to do a certain thing, you are always in control of your actions. If your character needs to decide whether or not to save another PC, isn't "the rest of the party's going to be mad if I don't" something they should take into account?

You're confusing IC and OOC.

In the hurly-burly of combat, there is no way that the other party members will realize that your Barbarian had the opportunity to save the life of the Wizard but didn't.

Out of character, though, the guy *playing* the Wizard knows that he asked me to help him out, and I didn't.


To me, they both look like exploration. He first decided that his character was reckless when it came to personal danger. Later, he decided that his character wasn't so reckless as to ignore the advice of his companions. Both of those sound like meaningful decisions that helped define the samurai's personality.

Okay, let's see if I can explain the difference as I see it.

Situation number one: the question is "does my character run down a corridor he knows to be full of traps, because that is the way he has to go to rescue somebody he cares about."

That's a character-defining decision.

Situation number two: the question is "do I roleplay my character as being reckless, when to do so would endanger the party."

That isn't a character decision, that's a metagame decision. Now it still affects the way you "roleplay" your character, but that's from the "portrayal" definition, not the "exploration" definition. You're not saying "my character would not do this", you are saying "I do not want my character to do this."


So all of your characters are very strategic when it comes to combat? That sounds something like an aspect of their personality to me.

That's because you're still thinking from a portrayer's perspective, not from an explorer's.


If I was DMing, and my characters made decisions in combat that made them less effective, I'd make allowances for that, since I like to encourage RPing, of any type.

There's only so many allowances you can make, though, before the system breaks.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-07-01, 04:53 PM
Of course you have the freedom. You can easily say "Gorthak Skullsplitter not save little man in dress!" because Gorthak Skullsplitter is Gorthak Skullsplitter, and not some nebulous concept controlling his actions that needs to worry about the reactions of other nebulous concepts that are controlling other people. Gorthak Skullsplitter also not need worry about other people's reactions, because Gorthak Skullsplitter is mighty! MIGHTY!


But the point is that in doing so I become directly responsible for harming another player's enjoyment of the game.

Furthermore, I reduce the probability of our party succeeding in the "challenge" we have been set by our DM.

And that's the point. The challenges you're set in D&D aren't *supposed* to help illuminate your character, they're supposed to test your strategic ability.


Also, I'd tend to argue against the "portrayer" role even existing, since it is not humanly possible to figure out in advance how your character will react to every single situation a DM can throw at you, because he will surprise you.

Then you miss the point.

The point is that the "portrayer" views "roleplaying" as something like "the act of talking in character and describing my characters actions in line with how that character would talk and act." He views the character as akin to a real person, and views his role as being to faithfully portray that person in the game.

The "explorer" on the other hand, defines "roleplaying" as "the act of making character-defining decisions without reference to external factors."

I think a lot of people who claim that there is no difference are still essentially thinking in terms of "portrayal", but are now confusing the act of portraying a character with the phenomenon I refer to as "exploration."


And just HOW does an explorer NOT see combat as an exploratory opportunity? If your DM isn't throwing interesting challenges at you, well, I hate to criticize another DM's style without them being there to learn about it, but that's definitely suboptimal.

If the DM is throwing interesting challenges at me, that is an opportunity to portray my character in an interesting situation. It is not an opportunity to explore facets of my character's personality.


I don't know, maybe the problem stems from either too much or not enough separation between combat and noncombat, or mechanics and roleplay. But if you're not roleplaying during combat, whatever roleplaying means to you, you're missing out on a LOT.

I'm not "roleplaying" during combat, because I do not consider the things you do during D&D combat to be "roleplaying." That's sort of my point.

No matter how much "in-character" you stay in combat, D&D combat does not *allow* for the kinds of decisions that lead to "exploration", because in any situation there is a *right* decision and a *wrong* decision.

Jannex
2007-07-01, 05:21 PM
No matter how much "in-character" you stay in combat, D&D combat does not *allow* for the kinds of decisions that lead to "exploration", because in any situation there is a *right* decision and a *wrong* decision.

Then, my character Rhiann's decision to leave the NPC she was protecting to his fate, because the thought of being captured again terrified her, wasn't an "exploration"--despite the fact that I, Rhiann's player, hadn't realized that her aversion to capture was strong enough to affect her that way, until that moment?

That may well be; I still have no idea where I fit in this schema you've devised, since there are elements of both "sides" that apply to me, and elements of both that don't.

Saph
2007-07-01, 05:49 PM
I'm not "roleplaying" during combat, because I do not consider the things you do during D&D combat to be "roleplaying." That's sort of my point.

This makes no sense at all. Roleplaying is present just as much in combat as in any other action you take with your character. You're still taking actions, you're still making decisions, and you're still able to act as IC or OOC as you like. In fact, given how critical combat decisions are, how you act in them is likely to reveal a lot more about your character than how he acts when, say, ordering a beer at the tavern.

You can choose to stop roleplaying when you're in combat, but this is a pretty self-limiting choice given how combat-heavy many D&D games are.


No matter how much "in-character" you stay in combat, D&D combat does not *allow* for the kinds of decisions that lead to "exploration", because in any situation there is a *right* decision and a *wrong* decision.

Dan, I think what you're really saying here is that you are unable to make personality-exploring decisions in D&D combat, because you always feel obliged to make the 'right' decision.

This is fine as far as it goes, but you need to understand that other people are able to make those kind of decisions in D&D combat. I know because I'm one of them. Jannex obviously is, too. Just because you can't do something, doesn't mean it's impossible.

If you're wondering how this is possible, the first thing to take into account that in most RPGs, there is really no such thing as a 'right' or 'wrong' decision, just as you can't 'win' or 'lose' the game. There can be a right or wrong answer to a specific question, such as "How can I most efficiently kill this dragon?", but there's no right or wrong answer to the question "What do we want to do?"

- Saph

Indon
2007-07-01, 06:52 PM
No matter how much "in-character" you stay in combat, D&D combat does not *allow* for the kinds of decisions that lead to "exploration", because in any situation there is a *right* decision and a *wrong* decision.

But there isn't. The 'worst' thing that can happen is your character dies.

Keeping a character alive is not, in fact, any kind of game objective of D&D. You could have fun making characters who, every time die, on their first combat... making them might get tedious, but each to their own.

Living through combat is a character objective, and that's only if, in fact, the character is interested in it.

Edit: For a less extreme example, say you play a coward. Being more prone to run away from battle (dependent, of course, on circumstances) is roleplaying him. Playing combat with just dice and tactics isn't roleplaying. At all, of any 'school' or 'kind'.

In the end, this distinction between 'portrayal' and 'exploration' is just that the portrayer roleplays more often. The 'portrayer' does everything the 'explorer' does, including perhaps having the character attain a life of its' own. The 'explorer' just doesn't do it when it doesn't interest them.

Dementrius
2007-07-01, 11:05 PM
No matter how much "in-character" you stay in combat, D&D combat does not *allow* for the kinds of decisions that lead to "exploration", because in any situation there is a *right* decision and a *wrong* decision.

Sometimes it's the "wrong" decisions that define a character. If all characters never make a "wrong" decision, how are they unique in any way?

Demented
2007-07-02, 12:16 AM
In short, there are two kinds of roleplayers.

Those who feel that the dice cramps their style, and those who do not.



With portrayers vs. explorers, it's a little hazier, but either of them can either be perfectly fine with, or utterly opposed to, having their decisions chosen by the dice, despite what the personal experiences of a few people may lead them to believe.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-07-02, 05:19 AM
But there isn't. The 'worst' thing that can happen is your character dies.

Or that somebody else's character dies, or that the entire party gets killed and the game ends.


Keeping a character alive is not, in fact, any kind of game objective of D&D. You could have fun making characters who, every time die, on their first combat... making them might get tedious, but each to their own.

Keeping your character alive *is* a game objective in D&D, that's why the system in D&D has so much information in it devoted to deciding whether or not your character dies.


Living through combat is a character objective, and that's only if, in fact, the character is interested in it.

And that's simply untrue. Living through combat is an objective implicit in the game system.


Edit: For a less extreme example, say you play a coward. Being more prone to run away from battle (dependent, of course, on circumstances) is roleplaying him. Playing combat with just dice and tactics isn't roleplaying. At all, of any 'school' or 'kind'.

Being more prone to run away from battle is portraying, but not exploring.

Exploring is finding out when the coward finally stands and fights.


In the end, this distinction between 'portrayal' and 'exploration' is just that the portrayer roleplays more often. The 'portrayer' does everything the 'explorer' does, including perhaps having the character attain a life of its' own. The 'explorer' just doesn't do it when it doesn't interest them.

The reason you, and most other people on this thread, seem to be saying that the portrayer roleplays "more often" is because you are still defining "roleplaying" as portrayal.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-07-02, 05:23 AM
Then, my character Rhiann's decision to leave the NPC she was protecting to his fate, because the thought of being captured again terrified her, wasn't an "exploration"--despite the fact that I, Rhiann's player, hadn't realized that her aversion to capture was strong enough to affect her that way, until that moment?

It depends very much on who the NPC was. Did you actually *care* about them, or had they just hired you as a bodyguard?


That may well be; I still have no idea where I fit in this schema you've devised, since there are elements of both "sides" that apply to me, and elements of both that don't.

I'm not attempting to categorize people, I'm attempting to highlight the fact that people can use the word "roleplaying" to mean different things, something which a lot of people on this thread still seem unwilling to accept.

Jannex
2007-07-02, 05:39 AM
It depends very much on who the NPC was. Did you actually *care* about them, or had they just hired you as a bodyguard?

She hadn't been hired as his bodyguard, or anything like that; it was simply a matter of the fact that he was a noncombatant, and had been trying to help her and the other PCs, and when the fight broke out, she felt responsible for him--protecting him was sort of a matter of honor for her. Which is why the fact that she was willing to leave him behind to avoid capture was a profound departure for her; I hadn't realized until that moment how strongly her previous experiences in captivity had affected her.


I'm not attempting to categorize people, I'm attempting to highlight the fact that people can use the word "roleplaying" to mean different things, something which a lot of people on this thread still seem unwilling to accept.

It feels to me like what you're talking about are two different aspects of roleplaying, rather than two discrete types. I think that "really" roleplaying involves doing both the things that you describe.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-07-02, 08:58 AM
It feels to me like what you're talking about are two different aspects of roleplaying, rather than two discrete types. I think that "really" roleplaying involves doing both the things that you describe.

In a sense I am, but more than that I'm pointing out that for some people the "exploration" aspect is primary. That essentially any scene in which you are *not* called upon to decide whether your character would risk a return to captivity in order to save the life of another person (or the equivalent) is actually kind of a waste of time.

Matthew
2007-07-02, 09:07 AM
Yay, circular discussion! I think the point of all this has been lost in the posts. Defining Roleplaying and recognising that there are multiple possible definitions which can contradict and agree with one another to different degrees seems to me to be the thrust of what was said in the original post. Looking for a 'true meaning' beyond identifying the multiple meanings is only going to lead to continued circular discourse.

barawn
2007-07-02, 09:25 AM
The point is, though, you don't say, "I kill the bad guy." You say, "I attack the bad guy," and roll some dice to see if you hit.

Yeah, but you can't ever choose to kill someone directly - not even in reality. Dying is something that they do. You only ever choose to attempt to kill them, and saying "I attempt to kill the bad guy" is the same as "I attack the bad guy."


Did you actually *care* about them, or had they just hired you as a bodyguard?

Why are you treating these two statements as disparate? Loyalty to an employer for some people can be just as strong as loyalty to a friend.



No matter how much "in-character" you stay in combat, D&D combat does not *allow* for the kinds of decisions that lead to "exploration", because in any situation there is a *right* decision and a *wrong* decision.

I have to agree with the others that this is a violently wrong statement. It's only true if you treat combat as a separate game layered on top of D&D. You don't have to. You shouldn't have to, and the game doesn't require you to.

Characters should occasionally freeze during combat due to panic - especially if they're not ridiculously battle trained. They should make mistakes. They should choose suboptimal strategies because of emotions. Appropriate encounters in D&D won't be TPKs just because the PCs occasionally make a mistake.

Indon
2007-07-02, 09:28 AM
The reason you, and most other people on this thread, seem to be saying that the portrayer roleplays "more often" is because you are still defining "roleplaying" as portrayal.

But all explorers can portray... when they are roleplaying. 100% of the time when an explorer is actually in-character, they are portraying their character.

Similarly, all portrayers can explore, in any opportunity they get to have their character change and grow. 100% of the time, when a portrayer is making a critical decision with their character (edit: or even a non-critical or trivial decision, if it turns out to be enlightening), they are exploring their character.

The only meaningful difference is that, by your definition of 'explorer', you aren't in character unless you feel your character can meaningfully change as a result of it.

Roleplaying is both portrayal and exploration. They aren't exclusive. (Edit: They aren't a continuum, really, either)

Dan_Hemmens
2007-07-02, 09:37 AM
Yeah, but you can't ever choose to kill someone directly - not even in reality. Dying is something that they do. You only ever choose to attempt to kill them, and saying "I attempt to kill the bad guy" is the same as "I attack the bad guy."

The emphasised line is, I think, actually the big barrier to communication here.

Another way to characterize these two different approaches could be:

The "portrayer" views their character as a real person, and views their role as being to portray the reactions of that person in a realistic way.

The "explorer" views their character as a fictional character, and views their role as being to explore and develop that character as one would a character in a book.

[Prepares for the barrage of people saying "well go write a book then"]

Dan_Hemmens
2007-07-02, 09:39 AM
But all explorers can portray... when they are roleplaying. 100% of the time when an explorer is actually in-character, they are portraying their character.

Exactly so. But that, for them, is not the *point* of roleplaying, and that's the big issue.


Similarly, all portrayers can explore, in any opportunity they get to have their character change and grow. 100% of the time, when a portrayer is making a critical decision with their character (edit: or even a non-critical or trivial decision, if it turns out to be enlightening), they are exploring their character.

But, again, that is not the *point* of roleplaying for those people.

The point is not that "explorers" never "portray" or that "portrayers" never "explore", but that a "portrayer" who never gets a decent opportunity to address issues in his character's personality won't care, whereas an explorer will.


The only meaningful difference is that, by your definition of 'explorer', you aren't in character unless you feel your character can meaningfully change as a result of it.

Roleplaying is both portrayal and exploration. They aren't exclusive. (Edit: They aren't a continuum, really, either)

I never said that they were.

barawn
2007-07-02, 09:44 AM
It's meaningless from a character perspective.

Because you're choosing to make it so.


If I choose to move into a flanking position in combat, that is a purely strategic decision which I am making in order to improve the chances of our party winning the fight.

Only if you choose to make it that way. A coward rogue character who appears bold, but is truly a coward might hang back the entire combat until a flanking position opens, and then (and only then) strike.


Now I might *justify* that in-character, but that does not make it a character decision.

There's no reason it can't be. Imagine a rogue who has a complete lack of trust in everyone else in the world. He had a hard life, and never sticks his neck out for someone else. In combat, he might only engage an opponent if he's got an ally flanking him - because he has no desire to stick his neck out for any of his allies and be a primary target.

This might not be a strategically optimal decision all the time - although it probably will only rarely be bad. But the rogue might end up hanging back, hiding, until one of the other combatants jumps into the fray first.

As for your "combat can't be exploratory," the big decision then would be, after venturing with his allies for a long time, does he become attached to them enough to actually engage someone alone, and put himself at risk? Who would he defend first? Would he defend them right away, or only when they're at risk?

barawn
2007-07-02, 09:48 AM
Except it's a collaborative book. You can't decide by fiat what happens in those situations when it's between characters controlled by two different people. The game has a mechanism for deciding what happens in those situations that includes an aspect of randomness, thus making it a game.

If you were to remove that mechanism, it would change very little. You would still have to tell the other person "well, Jim's going to try to stab Bob" and then the controlling character for Bob would have to decide whether or not he wants Bob to be able to avoid the blow.

You still couldn't say "Jim kills Bob" unless you control both Jim and Bob. And in D&D, that sort of thing does happen - most DMs I know don't roll attack rolls between NPCs if they want something to happen in a certain way.

Jannex
2007-07-02, 03:26 PM
In a sense I am, but more than that I'm pointing out that for some people the "exploration" aspect is primary. That essentially any scene in which you are *not* called upon to decide whether your character would risk a return to captivity in order to save the life of another person (or the equivalent) is actually kind of a waste of time.

Hm. I guess that to me, that approach is just kind of incomplete. The scene I described would have felt hollow to me if Rhiann hadn't had the opportunity, afterward, to talk with her friend the Druid (another PC) about her emotional reaction to what she'd done--ironically, the phrase that comes to mind is "exploring her feelings," though apparently this is a different usage of the word "explore" than you've established in this thread. These "portrayal" scenes help me to get inside the character's head, to better understand where she's coming from. Sometimes I'm even surprised by the things that come out of the character's mouth in such a scene, either because I hadn't realized the character felt a certain way, or because I hadn't realized that the character trusted the person she was talking to enough to open up as much as she did. A willingness to show emotional vulnerability can be as much of a character-defining choice as any other--but it's not likely to happen without those "portrayal" scenes. That's why I can't help thinking that the two "types" of roleplaying you've outlined are inextricably linked, and aren't really as different or as separate as you've made them out to be.

LotharBot
2007-07-02, 04:30 PM
LotharBot makes much sense. Though it seems to me like more a spin-off than an interpretation of the OP.

I wouldn't call it either an interpretation or a spin-off. I'd say I took his ideas and developed them further.

I think the OP was on to something, but hadn't fully developed the idea and had some mistaken conceptions of how exploring and portraying related (thinking of them as opposite or exclusive). I recognized the value of his distinction between exploring and portraying, and his statement that both are forms of role-playing, and I came to a better realization of how the two ideas relate.


I still can't quite fathom the perspective that any sort of character decision, be it where you stand in combat or what you order for dinner, is meaningless.

"Meaningless" may be too strong a statement. But a lot of decisions we make in real life have very little meaning. Consider, for example, deciding whether to go to a Chinese restaurant or an Italian restaurant for dinner. Sure, it has a little meaning and it reflects on your personality a little bit... but it's not a particularly life-changing decision (and if it does have life-changing consequences, those are typically accidental -- it just so happened that you met your wife at the Italian restaurant, or were stabbed on your way out of the Chinese place. Neither of those give significant meaning to your choice of restaurants.)

Similarly... once you've established that your character is the type to tumble and flank in combat, the fact that you're doing it for the hundredth time isn't a particularly meaningful decision (though the fact that you've done it a hundred times, taken in aggregate, is meaningful.) For an explorer type, such a decision is not interesting. Which brings us to:


I'm not "roleplaying" during combat, because I do not consider the things you do during D&D combat to be "roleplaying."

Ulzgoroth and others have objected to this, saying that every character decision is an opportunity to explore. In part, I agree with them. But that's kind of a weak objection. Yeah, every character decision (even in combat) is an OPPORTUNITY to explore, but not every opportunity leads to an interesting decision from an exploration perspective.

Those who say "you can always explore, even in combat" are right, and it's wrong to say "you can't ever explore in combat". But you're also right to say that many combat decisions are not particularly interesting or particularly meaningful.


this distinction between 'portrayal' and 'exploration' is just that the portrayer roleplays more often. The 'portrayer' does everything the 'explorer' does, including perhaps having the character attain a life of its' own. The 'explorer' just doesn't do it when it doesn't interest them.

There are 'portrayers' who only explore when they're forced to -- who never make interesting character decisions unless they're put into a scenario where they MUST do so. SOME portrayers do everything an explorer does and more, but others do not. SOME portrayers role-play every bit as much as an explorer and more, but others do not. My wife hardly ever portrays in the sense the OP described it, but every character she creates is an intentional exploration -- she always creates morally interesting and complex characters. There are portrayers whose characters are just as deep, and other portrayers whose characters are shallow.

EDIT to add:


if Rhiann hadn't had the opportunity, afterward, to talk with her friend the Druid (another PC) about her emotional reaction to what she'd done--ironically, the phrase that comes to mind is "exploring her feelings," though apparently this is a different usage of the word "explore" than you've established in this thread.

I would call such an action both "exploring" and "portraying". Mr. Hemmens is mistaken to treat them as exclusive of each other. You're portraying your character (that is, treating your own body or voice as if it was your character's), and you're exploring your character (that is, searching and determining where your character would draw the line and why.) Exploration does not need to take place in action; it can sometimes take place in words or thoughts.

A significant part of my wife's character exploration takes place in little journal entries she writes between sessions and never shares with the rest of the party / players. I would go so far as to call that both portrayal and exploration. The portrayal is not for an audience, but she still acts "in character" when writing, and she's definitely exploring her character's motivations and such.

-----

Both portrayal and exploration are valid parts of role-playing. That's what makes it a useful distinction (despite the OP not always presenting it well) -- it helps us to identify what parts of "role-playing" we consider important, and how well we engage in them.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-07-02, 05:17 PM
I wouldn't call it either an interpretation or a spin-off. I'd say I took his ideas and developed them further.

I think the OP was on to something, but hadn't fully developed the idea and had some mistaken conceptions of how exploring and portraying related (thinking of them as opposite or exclusive). I recognized the value of his distinction between exploring and portraying, and his statement that both are forms of role-playing, and I came to a better realization of how the two ideas relate.

I wasn't actually suggesting that "portrayal" and "exploration" were exclusive or opposite, only that a lot of people mean one or the other when they talk about "roleplaying."

I feel that a lot of people do think of "roleplaying" as consisting almost exclusively of what I refer to as "portrayal". Hence, for example, a lot of people insist that you can't be "roleplaying" if you refer to your character in the third person, or that deciding to make a full attack is still a "roleplaying decision" because it is "what your character would do."

So my aim was not to say "some people only do this, some people only do that" but rather to say "when some people talk about roleplaying, they are really talking about this, whereas when other people talk about roleplaying, they are really talking about that."

Now both parties *do* both, but they make different assumptions about what bit of the activity actually constitutes "roleplaying".