A question Roll vs Role

[Shinizak]

How much role-playing verses Roll-playing do you do? If your DM tried to make you Role-play more how well do you think you'd respond? And last but not least, what do you think you're respond best to if you were forced to role-play more?

[Prodan]

How much role-playing verses Roll-playing do you do?

All lot.

If your DM tried to make you Role-play more how well do you think you'd respond?

Remind him later that he asked for it.

And last but not least, what do you think you're respond best to if you were forced to role-play more?

"Did somebody order a LARGE HAM?"

[Bosh]

If your "roll playing" is so separate from your "role playing" that you can neatly distinguish them then that's probably a much bigger problem than whether you have more of one or the other. The whole point of RPGs is to integrate them so that they strengthen each other instead of undermining each other.

[Vortling]

How much role-playing verses Roll-playing do you do? If your DM tried to make you Role-play more how well do you think you'd respond? And last but not least, what do you think you're respond best to if you were forced to role-play more?

You ask some of these questions like you're defining the role/rollplay as two diametrically opposite items. Is this the case? I know I don't.

To answer your questions generally. I roleplay and roll play plenty, what with being the DM more often than playing. I wouldn't mind if my DM pushed for more roleplaying. If I were forced to roleplay more well... Half the fun of roleplaying is pretending to be Brian Blessed, and the other half is violence.

[lord_khaine]

How much role-playing verses Roll-playing do you do? If your DM tried to make you Role-play more how well do you think you'd respond? And last but not least, what do you think you're respond best to if you were forced to role-play more?

You act as if it were 2 seperate things.

[Sindri]

Roll-playing is how you fight, role-playing is why you fight. If you fight for no reason, your character sucks despite dealing 3000 points per round. In theory, the two don't interact with each other, but in practice the more powerful characters always seem to have less of a personality. I'd take a fighter or monk over a god-mage in most games, unless it would lead to immediate death.

I rarely have real problems with lack of personality, but I've seen players that come to every session with a new build idea because they haven't figured out that the reason that they're getting bored with the character is their lack of depth, rather than a flaw in the build. It's sort of sad.

[Zaydos]

Okay to answer the first question: In D&D I tend to find myself in kick-down-the-door style games (the exception was a d20 modern game but I don't like d20 modern) and don't get as many chances as I'd like to roleplay and explore my character Unfortunately my own (D&D) games tend not to have as much roleplaying as I'd like Non-D&D I've mainly done completely rules free role-playing and even then I was GMing, the storyteller whatever the term was it was just me and a friend having fun cause we were bored and they loved Yu-Gi-Oh... so possibly bad fanfic author would be most appropriate but I never wrote down a word and made stuff up as I went.

In D&D I try to roleplay as much as I can. In my last game I played in this took a bit since I built the character from the "this mechanic looks fun" perspective and it was really kick-down-the-door and kind of railroaded (I really enjoyed the game and it was one of the better DMs I've had because they at least made the adventures make sense and fun but the above stays true), but eventually I developed a character for my character and I made due by having him do things like talk to the other PCs and even some of the enemies in the middle of battle. He had an 8 Charisma, no training in Diplomacy, and still managed to get through two diplomatic challenges because I roleplayed him through them; and honestly one of those was probably the most fun encounter of the game and the one where I had the most feeling I would die. A lot of my warriors will talk to, or taunt, the enemy. My wizards will research magic, and if I can think up some spells will research them just to have their names on some spells.

If told to roleplay more? I'll try, might have to ask the DM for some advice on it, or to put in more encounters that can be roleplayed; or just to actually let us explore a town for once and talk to random peasants. It really depends upon the character. Some of them are Large Hams and there's no way around it. Some of them are total nut-cases that if roleplayed to the hilt would be disruptive (although they tend to get more roleplaying in than normal already). Some of them are more sedate and would be a little harder to "role-play more".

The third question I will divide my answers into minor and major. Minor: chances to just talk to random people in town; interesting villagers (if my character is an aspiring young wizard, I'd enjoy a chance to talk to the town mage on the merits of various ways to perform spells; if I'm Valgus Dwarf Crusader who seeks to forge the Ultimate Armor I'd talk to smiths about various means of smelting and methods of artistry).
Major: The chance to get free non-mechanical benefits (for example I will not usually give 1000 GP to get knighted, but I will spend time to role-play getting it); adventures dealing with my character's goals and background (for example Valgus's clan forged a powerful axe from a piece of adamantine corrupted by a dark artifact and this lead to the destruction of his clan by goblins led by the man wielding said ax forged to kill them and an evil madman coming to steal the axe, an adventure that involves the axe, its wielder, or the man seeking will get responses); a chance to make an actual in game ally or companion (partially because I have nothing against PCs having cohorts, but I refuse to use feats for it, my stance is roleplay it or no cohorts for you).

I hope this has been helpful. May I ask what brought about the question?

Edit: Also to the above poster, I agree a build alone does not a character make. It is but the body of the golem and without the animating spirit it is only oversized full-plate

[Bosh]

Roll-playing is how you fight, role-playing is why you fight. If you fight for no reason, your character sucks despite dealing 3000 points per round. In theory, the two don't interact with each other, but in practice the more powerful characters always seem to have less of a personality. I'd take a fighter or monk over a god-mage in most games, unless it would lead to immediate death.

Bah! I say bah!

When your character fights by jumping out bi-planes with a bungee cord tied around his waist (and a large triangular hat with a large feather on his head) in order to attack pilots of nearby enemy bi-plane with his rapier while swinging and bouncing through the air then you better believe that how you fight can be every bit as much roleplay as why your fight.

Note: I love the Spirit of the Century RPG.

A bit more seriously, combat is so much more fun if your combat decisions are informed by how your roleplay your character. Roleplaying doesn't mean talking with a funny accent, it means getting into the head of your character and that can be done while he's betting shot at as well (or better!) than any other time.

[Strawberries]

I'll try to answer, but with my 6 month experience (all in play by post) - I'm really not an authority in the matter .

First question:
If, by roll-play, you mean "play powerful character" then I don't, at all. But that's mainy because I suck at making powerful characters (I've only been playing for a few months, so...).
However I haven't been able to distinguish the two. It's possible that the pbp medium encourages roleplay, so that the two concepts aren't separated in my mind - I know it's perfectly possible to do both at the same time, as I've seen it done.

Second question:
My answer would be along the lines of Hell, yeah! , as that is the aspect of gaming I, as a player, find more enjoyable.

Third question:
Probably working with the DM to integrate the character into the setting. I discovered a thing I love to do is craft a small portion of the world around my character (I tend to think about family members, contacts, people I can't stand and the like). Also, politics. But that's because I love to play anarchists

[JaronK]

I am always roleplaying. Rolling the dice just informs the results of my simulated actions.

JaronK

[arrowhen]

"I attack the monster (roll, roll)" is just as much roleplaying as "forsooth, milady." I'm portraying a character, sometimes through their words and sometimes through their actions. Sometimes it involves dice, sometimes it doesn't, but it's all roleplay.

[Pink Ranger]

How much role-playing verses Roll-playing do you do? If your DM tried to make you Role-play more how well do you think you'd respond? And last but not least, what do you think you're respond best to if you were forced to role-play more?

When I play D&D, I try to play so that if the DM didn't want to use die rolls at all, he wouldn't have to. As such, I enjoy making characters that have serious personality flaws, are not optimized, and offer different plot hooks that can be taken up in the course of the campaign.

If the DM tried to make me role-play more, I would oblige...as long as he gave me something to work with. You give me a cliched story where the party is pigeonholed into doing what you want, you will get a cliched character. You give me a story I can get sucked into, I will act as best I can.

I know that one way my DMs have tried to get the party to role-play more in the past, has been to offer XP bonuses for what they considered acting in character. I find that personal bonuses end up being an exercise in favoritism, and are too subjective to really be an effective carrot. I think the best way to encourage more role-playing is to have the NPCs and the story actually be affected by the characters' actions. Making the players feel like even the small details matter is really important; don't let them exist in a vacuum independent of everything else in the setting.

[Milskidasith]

Role playing and "roll playing" (I hate that term because of all that it implies), are not exclusive, at all.

Making a strong character does not mean he can't have strong motivations or act well. They could have a troubled past (very cliche term, I know), a reason to fight something, plot hooks, a strong backstory, etc.

Making a weak character, or a character with massive personality flaws/flaws that affect combat very negatively, likewise, does not make the character better roleplayed by default. Yes, your character can have a crippling fear of the color yellow, severe self confidence issues, and an inability to do anything in combat, but that doesn't make them an endearing character. Roleplayed badly or even averagely, all that does is make your character an annoying load on the party.

[Serpentine]

How much role-playing verses Roll-playing do you do?

More Role than Roll. Roll is determined by Role.

If your DM tried to make you Role-play more how well do you think you'd respond?

Craft a character that will be both fun and easy to roleplay.

And last but not least, what do you think you're respond best to if you were forced to role-play more?

Um... Do you mean "what can the DM do to encourage you to roleplay more?"? If so, offer situations and characters with which I can have my character interact in entertaining and/or meaningful ways.
I dislike the state of mind that has so many "makes" and "forces" in those questions.

[Shinizak]

I hope this has been helpful. May I ask what brought about the question?

I am making a home brew system that combines World of Darkness, L5R, call of cthulhu, and the faintest trace of D&D 3.5. However when I asked my friend what he wanted out of a game, he said he simply wanted a role-playing mechanic that encouraged the players to role-play more rather then just grinding out some dice. I found the idea intriguing, so I decided to ask you guys to see (A) whether the average player would be accepting of being told to RP more, and (B) what would encourage you to do so. Once I'm confident that I see a trend I'll work to incorporate it into the system.

[Serpentine]

Uh... In that case, I think you're looking at it the wrong way What you want is to make a system that welcomes, encourages and enables as much roleplaying as a player wants, not one that forces them to adhere to a particular level. Of the (two <.<) systems I've played in, World of Darkness is probably the best for this.
To put it another way, you want to build a system that will attract roleplayers, not one that will lure in rollplayers and then force them to become roleplayers. If you do it right, in other words, this will all be a moot point.

[Milskidasith]

I am making a home brew system that combines World of Darkness, L5R, call of cthulhu, and the faintest trace of D&D 3.5. However when I asked my friend what he wanted out of a game, he said he simply wanted a role-playing mechanic that encouraged the players to role-play more rather then just grinding out some dice. I found the idea intriguing, so I decided to ask you guys to see (A) whether the average player would be accepting of being told to RP more, and (B) what would encourage you to do so. Once I'm confident that I see a trend I'll work to incorporate it into the system.

There is no distinction between the two, and they do not hinder each other. That is my position. I do not see why people think that they are two distinct entities where more power means you are a worse roleplayer and crippling mechanical flaws make your character well written, or where optimizing means your character can't possibly have a coherent theme while picking feats for flavor/randomly means your character is better at representing what he wants to be.

Furthermore, I don't understand why people say things like "roleplay drives 'rollplay.'" If you mean that the motivation behind the characters occurs before and gives a reason for why they take their actions, that's nothing new; typically events do have the cause come first and the effect later. If you say mean "characters are built for roleplaying reasons first, and the mechanics are fitted on" that depends on the person; plenty of people build the mechanics first and write a backstory to fit it, and neither are necessarily of lower quality, in mechanics or story, than the other.

[Shinizak]

Uh... In that case, I think you're looking at it the wrong way What you want is to make a system that welcomes, encourages and enables as much roleplaying as a player wants, not one that forces them to adhere to a particular level. Of the (two <.<) systems I've played in, World of Darkness is probably the best for this.
To put it another way, you want to build a system that will attract roleplayers, not one that will lure in rollplayers and then force them to become roleplayers. If you do it right, in other words, this will all be a moot point.

I know, I was leaning more towards a reward system for roll playing like exalted with it's stunt bonuses rather then flat out forcing those who are naturally uncreative to exercise something they just don't have. but I wanted to make sure anyway.

[Earthwalker]

He had an 8 Charisma, no training in Diplomacy, and still managed to get through two diplomatic challenges because I roleplayed him through them; and honestly one of those was probably the most fun encounter of the game and the one where I had the most feeling I would die.

I never get this. If you have 8 cha and no social skills then it is not playing the character "role" well to win diplomatic problems. You are not roleplaying by convincing the other group to let you live, as you are not playing the role you have.

It guess worse if players are using a point buy system. I may as well take my cha down to 8 and then not bother buying social skills I will just "roleplay" it. If you are "roleplaying" that char then do it properly. Make him shy so he doesn't speak up, or make him a truly obnoxious character. I mean he has gone thru all his life and not learned anything of the simple niceties of life, like you know some diplomacy.

To answer the questions.

generally we do alot of roleplay, most times players try to limit there abilities to they characters skills.

If the GM wanted more Role play he would get it, I never object to just talking out situations, and staying in character.

If you are wanting to force some role play I would first start it with none serious life threatening situations.

[Serpentine]

That depends on what that 8 Charisma means to him. Is it poor looks, low self-esteem, bad social skills, social anxiety, grumpiness, an offputting tic or feature, lack of sense of one's place in the world, lack of self-worth, inability to emphasise with others, or a mixture or what?
If this specific case was largely about low self-esteem and plain appearance, then the successful Diplomacies might represent the character's ability to put aside these concerns and step up to the occasion, using his intellect to reason his way to a favourable outcome. It might even result in character development, the roleplaying of development of a sense of self worth, perhaps represented mechanically by some investment in Charisma.

[oxybe]

1) how much?

depends on the game, group & session. some games are just very crunch heavy by default. some groups are more "beer and pretzels". some sessions are winged and RPed more then anything else.

i've yet to see any constant in my experience other then "it depends who you're playing with"

2)DM makes me RP?

you can't really "make" someone RP more then you can force an introvert into an extravert in a matter of seconds. it all depends on how the GM presents his case and how demanding he's being. if it's just one or two little things that irritate him or a suggestions or two, then no biggie.

3)forced to RP?

if leaving the game is for some strange reason not an option, then i simply get annoying and irritating.

i will play an affably evil character who monologues while other characters (PCs & NPCs alike) are still around but "offscreen"... and of course they can hear me. my plots would probably revolve around the fact that the PC knows that the D&D universe works in really, really weird ways.

the more you force something on me, the worse it gets for you. if i'm not comfortable with his demands, then i leave.

[arrowhen]

What do you (and/or your friend) mean by "role-playing mechanic"?

[Milskidasith]

That depends on what that 8 Charisma means to him. Is it poor looks, low self-esteem, bad social skills, social anxiety, grumpiness, an offputting tic or feature, lack of sense of one's place in the world, lack of self-worth, inability to emphasise with others, or a mixture or what?
If this specific case was largely about low self-esteem and plain appearance, then the successful Diplomacies might represent the character's ability to put aside these concerns and step up to the occasion, using his intellect to reason his way to a favourable outcome. It might even result in character development, the roleplaying of development of a sense of self worth, perhaps represented mechanically by some investment in Charisma.

The case was less "he made a good diplomacy roll" and more "The guy didn't even bother rolling, he just used his real personality to talk his way out of things."

Furthermore, and this is a problem with D&D, investing into side ventures is incredibly hard and practically worthless; it takes a significant fraction of a characters level ups to enhance his charisma for essentially no benefit, especially since the number doesn't even matter when you can just talk through things. Not that diplomacy is a good system, mind you, but making the biggest dump stat in the game useless even for the skills it is used for and penalizing people who want to play diplomatic characters for not being well-spoken is not really what I would consider good role-playing. It might be clever, sure, and it's certainly good (RL) diplomacy if it works, but it's not actually playing your role.

[Ozymandias9]

Furthermore, I don't understand why people say things like "roleplay drives 'rollplay.'"

Generally, for me that means treating story goals without any definitive mechanical benefits as valid goals. To use an example above, if I had a character who I would expect wants to be knighted, I would have them pay the 1000 g if it were required.

Now, as a GM, I would far prefer finding a way to work that a bit more elegantly-- perhaps there is a requirement that knights be landed in the realm of the monarch. The 1000g is thus used to buy the land and establish the keep (actually, the keep would probably cost a bit more in most settings). The Knight could then reasonably expect to make some gold back from having hirelings work the land in a serfdom arrangement.

[Shinizak]

What do you (and/or your friend) mean by "role-playing mechanic"?

L5R has the mechanics of Glory, Honor, and status. For Honor, depending on how how much you respect your superiors, your status, and your people can all affects a good portion of your skills. Glory is how brave you were in battle, especially in mass battles, and status can be achieved if the lord is impressed and gives your character land/power/etc.

Werewolf the apocalypse has a similar system, but instead of status you get wisdom which you get based on how much wisdom you show in your adventures. Someone who kills an important NPC just because you want to kill something that day isn't going to have a lot of wisdom. And the amount of glory/wisdom honor determines what kind of power you can learn.

Exalted has a stunt bonus which grants bonus dice based on how well/extensive you describe you action.

[Milskidasith]

Generally, for me that means treating story goals without any definitive mechanical benefits as valid goals. To use an example above, if I had a character who I would expect wants to be knighted, I would have them pay the 1000 g if it were required.

Now, as a GM, I would far prefer finding a way to work that a bit more elegantly-- perhaps there is a requirement that knights be landed in the realm of the monarch. The 1000g is thus used to buy the land and establish the keep (actually, the keep would probably cost a bit more in most settings). The Knight could then reasonably expect to make some gold back from having hirelings work the land in a serfdom arrangement.

So... cause and effect? Characters doing things because they have a reason to? As I said, that's less "roleplay versus 'rollplay'" and more "How everything in every system, real life, every piece of fiction, etc." works. Saying "roleplay drives rollplay" is either a comment about character building which is untrue, or a statement so obvious that it has no real meaning.

[Earthwalker]

That depends on what that 8 Charisma means to him. Is it poor looks, low self-esteem, bad social skills, social anxiety, grumpiness, an offputting tic or feature, lack of sense of one's place in the world, lack of self-worth, inability to emphasise with others, or a mixture or what?
If this specific case was largely about low self-esteem and plain appearance, then the successful Diplomacies might represent the character's ability to put aside these concerns and step up to the occasion, using his intellect to reason his way to a favourable outcome. It might even result in character development, the roleplaying of development of a sense of self worth, perhaps represented mechanically by some investment in Charisma.

I do see what you are saying. If the player was viewing the low cha as low self esteem, it was lucky that he managed to over come it twice, both times when it really mattered.
I think alot of players assign a low score in charisma and then go on and play the character as they normally would. If you aren't playing a class that needs cha it is never thought about.
I have bad Shadowrun memories of cha 1 characters with no social skills still trying to be the face of the group so I am probably over sensitive about this stuff.

[Ozymandias9]

So... cause and effect? Characters doing things because they have a reason to? As I said, that's less "roleplay versus 'rollplay'" and more "How everything in every system, real life, every piece of fiction, etc." works. Saying "roleplay drives rollplay" is either a comment about character building which is untrue, or a statement so obvious that it has no real meaning.

Well, it can certainly have an effect on character building: if you have a character in mind, the nature of the character may (specific to certain characters) dictate some measure of class, skill, feat, or wealth investment that has no heavy mechanical value.

But in the more general case, I don't think it "has no real meaning." Someone said earlier in this very thread that they would be unwilling to give up 1000g to be knighted if it carried only story benefits. Would you?

[Milskidasith]

Well, it can certainly have an effect on character building: if you have a character in mind, the nature of the character may (specific to certain characters) dictate some measure of class, skill, feat, or wealth investment that has no heavy mechanical value.

As I have said, it is unwise to assume that everybody builds with a concept first, and then mechanics, or builds entirely on mechanics, then slaps on a story. You could easily have varying degrees, such as starting with a backstory, or starting with an archetype, then making the mechanics, then making the backstory, or starting with a character mechanically complete and refluffing with the backstory, or any combination. Yes, you can take feats that are irrelevant for fluff reasons, but that does not make the character who doesn't burn fluff feats any worse, nor does it make any sense when you build mechanics first, or archetype then mechanics, or even in some cases where you build "general backstory, then mechanics, then finishing touches."

But in the more general case, I don't thing it "has no real meaning." Someone said earlier in this very thread that they would be unwilling to give up 1000g to be knighted if it carried only story benefits. Would you?

That's irrelevant to what I am saying. What I was saying is that defining "roleplaying driven" as "Characters/players doing things because they have reason to" is such an obvious statement it's meaningless. I'm not saying it's not true, much like I'm not saying that bringing up the fact the sky is blue in the middle of a conversation isn't true. It just doesn't add anything to the conversation because nobody was in disagreement about it.

[Strawberries]

But in the more general case, I don't thing it "has no real meaning." Someone said earlier in this very thread that they would be unwilling to give up 1000g to be knighted if it carried only story benefits. Would you?

No, I wouldn't. I've done similar things before. For instance, my rogue (level 3, and my third character ever, so it would be hard to find something less optimized) gave 500 golds, a part of the loot found after completing an assignment, to a friend of hers. The friend was in my backstory, had been established to be a bit of a sister for my character, and was in a tight spot at the moment, so it made sense.

But I still can't see the difference. I would have done the same even if my character was the pinnacle of optimizing and power. (which is what I've come to understand "rollplay" means).
What I'm saying is that I agree with Milskidasith: it's less a case of role vs rollplay and more a case of character doing things because they have a reason to. And I think that depends on how the individual player approaches gaming, more than the mechanics.