On a scale, how much do you roleplay?

[Mastikator]

Out of curiosity and boredom, I'd like to know how much people roleplay, what is considered too much, and how little is too little.

The scale goes as follows:
0, no roleplaying at all.
1, mostly metagaming but at least you've written down what personality your character is supposed to have.
2, you'll follow the character's expected decisions when it's convenient.
3, your character is not a mirror of yourself.
4, you roleplay casually and speak in character, sometimes you even make decisions that are less than beneficial because it's "in character".
5, you not only speak in character, but do voice acting and mimic the mannerism of your character, and you only metagame to save your life or a party member's life.
6, you don't metagame, even if it means saving your life, only your dm can save you now
7, now you're bordering on LARPing, you show up with stuff that represents "in-game" stuff, maybe you use real money to symbolize game money to make it feel more real, maybe you wear clothes that look like something your character would wear
8, this is no longer bordering on LARPing, you wear "in game" clothes and never speak out of character, even when others insist on a break from the game and are annoyed with your roleplaying
9, you suffer from psychosis and actually believe that you are your character
10, you have transcended beyond the mortal realm and actually BECOME the character you play

[Reynard]

In D&D? Around 4, actually.
Exalted though, 5-6.
Everything 7 and above is just stupid, though.

And there are a few inconsistencies. 3 for example doesn't make much sense, or implies that people who roleplay different characters aren't actually roleplaying as they're not like that character.

[Eldan]

I'm roleplaying as a non-nerd in real life, actually. So far, none of my colleagues have noticed my true nerdery

To be serious, though: probably 4. Some out of character talk is unavoidable, really. I try to avoid metagaming.

[dsmiles]

On your scale, I come out at about a 6.

[Sillycomic]

6. Even last Saturday in my Cthulhu game.

We were trying to find our way through a cemetery known to have a bunch of ghouls. They attacked us from two different directions and we got separated. I ran out into the water (which they were afraid of) by myself.

Which is bad.

By the time everyone else made it they were followed by 3 ghouls.

Now, I know that they had just fought a bunch of ghouls and there were even more still in the cemetary and this number was bigger than we all assumed. So, in my head there were still 5 or so ghouls unaccounted for.

My character though... would have assumed every ghoul was either dead or following our party.

So what do I do?

Make a break for the cemetery to save my own life... knowing full well I would run into ghouls.

And I did.

And they ate me.

[Semidi]

8.5

I am a LARPer and even when I play D&D I tend to be fairly role-play heavy (though I hardly ever take it very seriously). While I don't actually believe I am my characters, I have picked up some of their mannerisms. For instance, I play a 50s beat poet brujah in a game and I've picked up some of his phrases and slang (Do you dig? Hip to what I'm saying? Cool.). Also, when I play a character whose an expert in something, I tend to research it myself. Somehow I ended up ready just about everything Oscar Wilde wrote and took several classes on Aestheticism when I played a character based on Wilde's philosophy.

[Ravens_cry]

Between 5 and 6, leaning toward 6 , 5.76 I would say. I mean, metagamings tempting, and we all sometimes give in to temptation, but I do think its wrong.

[Totally Guy]

I like systems where the optimal way of playing is to play the character that's written down.

For example in Mouse Guard I was playing an old grizelled patrol leader and I wanted to earn myself some additional actions during the downtime phase so during the mission I decided to hinder myself while looking to find my way to the next town by using some antique maps from back when I was in my prime instead of the maps the rest of the party wanted me to.

I was metagaming by persuing the metagame rewards but I also defined my character in a way that I wouldn't have thought of doing myself (the old ways are the best) if I weren't metagaming that aspect.

Later on the patrol's brainy mouse wanted to negotiate with our enemies and I thought that it was a stupid idea. My decision as his commanding officer was simple... But the I realised that I could eran a fate point, a metagame reward, by asking a lot of quetions before making my decision, "Ask quetions before making decisions" was my instinct, I'd written it there. So I asked my team mate lots of questions and he answered them favourably... having heard his answers I changed my mind and let him do it. This revealed another side to the guy that I didn't know was there.

Metagaming doesn't necessarily act at the detriment of roleplaying.

[Comet]

Usually 4, with occasional drops to 3 and rises to 5 depending the game.

And I'm seconding everything Glug said above. I'm usually more concerned with the overall story rather than 'becoming' any specific character. Even as a player, everything I do is done with the overall story in mind. So, I don't think 'Is this what my character would do', I think 'Is this something that would take the story in a cool direction'.

But in the end it depends very much on the system and the group I am playing with. Also, Mouse Guard is awesome. Just felt like throwing that out there.

[SiuiS]

4.5. I tend to play characters that are genre savvy, so metagaming is a character trait. Understanding asymmetric warfare and taking one for the team when you'll live to regret it (or can afford to come back and be peeved) are just standard for characters with suitably high mental scores and a job that involves continual violence. OODA and all that.

I intend to play a fresh, young 14-15 year old off to make his fortune soon though, and will relish the chance to rush into dungeons with my awesomely brilliant ten foot pole, and still think fireballs are impressive. Hee

[Starbuck_II]

Out of curiosity and boredom, I'd like to know how much people roleplay, what is considered too much, and how little is too little.

The scale goes as follows:
0, no roleplaying at all.
1, mostly metagaming but at least you've written down what personality your character is supposed to have.
2, you'll follow the character's expected decisions when it's convenient.
3, your character is not a mirror of yourself.
4, you roleplay casually and speak in character, sometimes you even make decisions that are less than beneficial because it's "in character".

I'd peg Ziggy at 4.

[LordBlades]

Around 4. More out of combat, less in combat (my group plays combat more toward the tactical side of things, so we usually make smart choices, regardless of the char's actual int/wis).

[Earthwalker]

I usualy hit about a 4.
When I look back at the role playing sessions I have enjoyed the most it is usualy when I am encountering problems and usualy automatically thinking how my character would solve it, not whats the best way round this.
Times when I haven't needed to actually have that thought process just doing what my character would.

[bokodasu]

I think you've got two scales going on there - A) how much do you make in-character decisions and B) how much do you pretend to be your character.

On scale A, I think I'd be pretty high - I try to only take actions that make sense for my character, and I recognize that she's a separate creation from myself, with different knowledge and abilities. On scale B, I'd be a 0 - I don't do any in-character talking/acting (in the sense of actor-on-a-stage acting, not taking-actions acting. Let's go up a level!)

[Pigkappa]

4 in D&D, 6 in V:tM.

I think that 8 is what happens in live games.

Metagaming doesn't necessarily act at the detriment of roleplaying.

The worst and most common kind of metagaming is making use of information a character can't have (e.g. speaking out of game during combat with a player whose character is far away to adopt an optimal strategy).

[Curmudgeon]

I like about 4.5. With my Friday night gaming group, though, we typically are about a 3 ─ usually too tired for much role-play.

[Totally Guy]

The worst and most common kind of metagaming is making use of information a character can't have (e.g. speaking out of game during combat with a player whose character is far away to adopt an optimal strategy).

That's the problem with optimal strategies... You find it and it's pretty much not a choice at all.


Edit: I may have been more insightful that I knew.

While a player telling another player of an optimal strategy might be considered bad practice, a player pointing out the intricacies of a dilemma to another player could be considered good.

"Oh man, if you attack the orc leader you you could end this conflict now, but if you don't attack the orc minion you'll lose your wife!"

If the player hadn't spotted the dilemma then the conclusion of the event is not really roleplaying. But interacting with the dilemma as a dilemma is roleplaying.

I think that the existence of optimal strategy is undermining to roleplaying.

[Tyndmyr]

4, you roleplay casually and speak in character, sometimes you even make decisions that are less than beneficial because it's "in character".

This is where I generally sit. I've sampled larps and so forth, but I suck at voices. It's a fun place to be.

[Mastikator]

[snip]
I think that the existence of optimal strategy is undermining to roleplaying.

This depends entirely on your priorities. If your goal is to win the challange then yes, if your goal is to roleplay your character well then not at all.
There are no "wrong" priorities in context of a game though.

[LordBlades]

The worst and most common kind of metagaming is making use of information a character can't have (e.g. speaking out of game during combat with a player whose character is far away to adopt an optimal strategy).

This depends on how you look at it. IMHO I do feel that in some circumstances OOC input from others is quite helpful (like when trying to simulate the kind of plans your 30+ int wizard would come up with). At other time it is bad for roleplay though (like explaining a raging barbarian that the encounter would become 36% easier if he makes a 5ft step diagonally right).

[Totally Guy]

This depends entirely on your priorities. If your goal is to win the challange then yes, if your goal is to roleplay your character well then not at all.
There are no "wrong" priorities in context of a game though.

If my goal was to win the challenge then an optimal strategy would be exactly what I'd want.

[Welknair]

I'm the DM of a group that's been transitioning from 3-5 just recently. It's awesome.

[Pentachoron]

I think you've got two scales going on there - A) how much do you make in-character decisions and B) how much do you pretend to be your character.

On scale A, I think I'd be pretty high - I try to only take actions that make sense for my character, and I recognize that she's a separate creation from myself, with different knowledge and abilities. On scale B, I'd be a 0 - I don't do any in-character talking/acting (in the sense of actor-on-a-stage acting, not taking-actions acting. Let's go up a level!)

Quoted. For. Truth.

I'm the same, I make decisions for my character always based on the defining characteristics I have set out for my character, but I never personally act my character out, nor do I for NPCs when I DM. Not my style or my groups style.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

In any campaign that's even remotely RP focused I'm a 6, with heavy shades of 10 (but not 7-9). I say this because I've caught myself looking at situations and thinking about situations entirely from my character;s perspective, and wondering later why I made the decisions I did. I tend to reflect my character's mood far to accurately, and have been told that, while playing, I really do become my character for the the serious RP portion of the games.

[Techsmart]

Usually, I'm anywhere between a 4 and a 6, depending on the DM, how we feel that session, and what kind of character i'm playing. I tend to try avoiding metagaming, but it will sometimes slip through, if the situation pushes itself. My characters have occasionally done things that were not to their benefit, because it is "in character," however, my characters also tend to avoid the really stupid things, since they are usually heavy mental stat chars, even the more combat-oriented ones (combat expertise is a common one for me)

[Zuljita]

I clock in at a 4 with dips to 2 and spikes to 6, depending on the game played, other players, mood and scene.

[valadil]

Depends. Minimum 4. Maximum 8. I have hit 10 for brief periods while LARPing though.

Not all games are worth heavy RP. If the GM isn't going to let your character make a difference in the story, there's no point in going above and beyond. If the story is the same no matter what character I play, I don't see the point in doing heavy roleplaying.

I'm also not likely to go overboard if the other players are being casual. I'm not an attention hog. If a group is talking about tactics in terms of mobs and aggro, I'm just going to look like an idiot if I use pseudo middle english. For me to take on period speaking patterns I need to be in a game where that's what everyone else is doing. Same thing for costumes. I just don't want to be that guy trying way too hard when nobody else cares.

Regarding 10, I've experienced character transcendence once or twice. The first time I LARPed was in a weekend game in college. From friday to sunday I was Hafez al-Qadim. Hafez was much more social than I was. I forced myself to be chatty and manipulative because, well, that's what the character was supposed to do. By the middle of the game I wasn't forcing myself anymore. By the end I had trouble stopping. It took me a couple days to leave character and get back to myself. Basically the experience taught me that I have a charisma score. It's just not in my character to be a manipulative social butterfly even if I have the capability of doing so. Before the game I had no idea I had that capability. I ended up gaining a big self esteem boost, writing a paper on the matter, and eventually getting over stage fright because of that LARP.

[Callista]

6-7. I don't use props a lot because I don't really feel I need them; gestures work just as well. But beyond that, yeah, I RP a lot.

Metagaming at all would make the game much less fun for me. I'd rather have my character die in-character than live because I pulled something the character couldn't have known, couldn't have done.

I've mentioned that my characters kind of live in my head... they're fictional people with their own desires, and take over for the time I play them. Apparently, authors of fiction and actors often have the same experience--it's not like you forget who you are; you just become very good at pretending and suspension of disbelief. For me, that's part of what makes D&D so much fun; you get to "be" somebody different, live out all those what-ifs.

[Dienekes]

When I was a PC, probably around a 5-5.5. I can't think of a time I really metagamed, but my memory is pisspoor.

As a GM, I go 6 with about every character I take up. So many mannerisms and accents, so little time.

[Lurkmoar]

4.5, couldn't do good voice mimicry if it was to save my life.