How rare are dedicated roleplayers?

[Kalmageddon]

I've been playing roleplaying games with quite a few people in my career as a gamer and I was wondering just how rare is it to find players that really care about things like the setting, characterization and interaction? The kind of players that really like to immerse themselves in the game. Basically those that are in it not only for the social aspect of eathing chips and drinking beer around a table with a few friends, but also for the game itself and the real, actual roleplay.
In my experience, they are somewhat rare. Most people I've played with, both as a player and as a GM, don't really put a lot of effort into the pure roleplay aspect of the game. Sure they might try to do their best when it comes to combat and a few other things, but things like in-character interactions and dialogues or real character consistency remain relatively uncommon.

BTW, I feel I should point out that I'm not saying that a dedicated player is a better player. I think playing just for the social aspect of the game is perfectly acceptable and a lot of fun, it's just that I sort of miss the passion and immersion that some players and GMs I've met brought to the table.
I'm thinking that it would be really nice if I could find and assemble a group of dedicated players to have a really immersive campaign, but I'm wondering how likely it would be for me to find such players in sufficent number.
What do you guys think?

[Tengu_temp]

Depends heavily on the game. I imagine that Burning Wheel would have something like 80% dedicated roleplayers and 20% casual players, for example, while for DND, the numbers would be switched. And obviously, finding dedicated roleplayers is easier online, where you're not limited to the few groups playing in the near area.

[jaydubs]

I'd say it's a range rather than those that do and don't. It also depends on the specific game and characters.

Most of the games I'm in, there is at least a good portion of RP. But there's been all of 1 that was extremely immersive. And that was because coincidentally, all the players either got into character method acting style, or were pulling heavily on their own personalities.

And I mean, really immersive. Like, feeling real, honest, fury at our in-universe enemies. It was an unlikely convergence that I don't expect to see again.

[NichG]

As a very crude estimate: I would guess maybe 10-15% of the entire tabletop gaming population is like that (including things like miniatures/war gaming). However, I'd say that maybe 50% would end up being at least able to enjoy being dedicated roleplayers given exposure to the right gaming environments and playing at tables that do it well.

[Lorsa]

The majority of the people I play with are the kind of "dedicated roleplayers" that you describe. Partly because that's the sort of people I want to play with and partly because I've found that once people experience that kind of highly immersive game they tend to like it. Certainly not everyone, but more than you think.

[Comet]

Every player I've ever played with (which is admittedly not a whole lot) has been a combination of the two. We crack jokes and enjoy the food and drinks but we also get really excited about good or bad rolls in dramatic situations and enjoy exploring settings and creating character situations, especially across longer campaigns. No one ever really goes into "serious drama actor" mode but I don't think that's ever been necessary, either.

[jedipotter]

I'm thinking that it would be really nice if I could find and assemble a group of dedicated players to have a really immersive campaign, but I'm wondering how likely it would be for me to find such players in sufficent number.
What do you guys think?

They are rare enough. I'd say 33/33/33. A good third of gamers are just casual. They just do it for the fun. They just want to relax and not think too much. They might go for average role play, but don't go for immersion. Another third are your number roll player types. They are just playing the numbers game, almost always combat. They think role playing is they gave their character a name. The final third are the dedicated role players.

[DrBurr]

It can also depend on the mood of the players that night, some sessions I find my players are more dedicated to a roleplaying experience then others. Really there no such as a dedicated Roleplayer who always is roleplaying and invested, in my experience anyways people fade in and out of periods of heavy investment to periods of light investment. Sometimes a session which should be serious can be the session that everyone is cracking Monty Python jokes and sometimes a session which should be comical can go Dramatic

[Amphetryon]

I, for one, would love to see the studies that produced the percentages some folks in this thread are citing. Information on sample sizes and methodology of data collection would be interesting.

[DodgerH2O]

I can only go from my experiences...

Most of the groups I've had the fortune to game with regularly have had about 6 people, 5 players, 1 GM (Systems are D&D, Shadowrun, and general d20 settings).

I'm usually the dedicated roleplayer in my group, but depending on how everyone else is acting, I might not RP as much. Often there's OOC chatter, as most of the players are friends with each other and game night is as much about hanging out as RPGs, and in a few groups there has been a single player that just makes serious RP way too hard, as that player can't stop breaking character and/or doing things that are just too ridiculous.

I've found if the GM takes RP seriously, the players tend to make a bit more effort. I'd say there's a spectrum, and the "average" player (from my rather small sample size, 30 or so) is about 30-80% dedicated to RP, with the outliers at 90% and higher as well as the 0-10% types who really just RP enough to make sure everyone knows what their character is doing, rather than trying to get "into character".

[NichG]

I, for one, would love to see the studies that produced the percentages some folks in this thread are citing. Information on sample sizes and methodology of data collection would be interesting.

There's a reason I said 'very rough estimate'. My 'data', for what its worth, is anecdotal observation of a university RPG club with about 40-50 members over the course of 4 years or so, including things like observation of player behavior in three club-wide campaigns, as well as recruitment patterns for a couple dozen smaller individual campaigns. But of course this isn't rigorous or methodological, and really no data obtained is going to be.

Of course, we're not talking about launching a product line here, just about the feasibility of finding 5-6 players who share the OP's playstyle, so something biased and inconsistent is probably still good enough for the OP's purpose. Take home message: none of these estimates are as low as 1% or as high as 99%, so if you're advertising for players in a place with enough available players then you can probably make the group you want as long as you interview carefully and are selective - but also if you aren't selective you'll get a few players who don't share the style you're looking for.

[jedipotter]

I, for one, would love to see the studies that produced the percentages some folks in this thread are citing. Information on sample sizes and methodology of data collection would be interesting.

That is just silly.

[Spore]

You're probably not even aware of some roleplayers who you see as "socialites".

I try really hard to roleplay properly but I have several problems. I'm just a guy who has problems writing dozens of different backstories since we have a good lot of groups and characters flying around. Also I am very introverted by nature. So when I play party faces this tends to get quite odd. Either I'm talked over while my character should be the awe-inspiring thing in the room or I start to stutter because suddenly everyone and everything in the room looks at me.

As a result my best characters are the silent ones. Characters that lead by example not by word. Characters that are genuinely friendly and warm not egotistical cold blooded or mystical. Characters that are somewhat chaotic in mind.

This reflects into my characters: I loved my chaotic Rogue, my friendly halfling Paladin and my very silent but friendly Oracle (of Death & Cold ironically). I like my quasi evil Dragon Disciple but I've heard that it doesn't come over as well played. I enjoy my chaotic slutty Drow Sorceress but again she's not very convincing. And lastly my Oracle of Lore was planned very bookwormish but his character has improved since I decided that a charismatic and smart guy acting as public organ for a secret cult should act friendly.

[RustyArmor]

I'm in roughly the same place in our d&d game. We only have me and other other that really try to RP but only problem is we are the two that take turns DMing so it is basically him interacting with my NPCs or me interacting with his. Sadly when it happens one of our players pretty much empathize how bored they are by yawning loudly or laying head on table while another player goes right to his cellphone or his DS. The others tend to be hit or miss where they might interact a little or just "shop/drink" in towns. We got the one to slightly RP but he only enjoys overly obnoxious internet troll type role playing and it pretty much quickly turns to all PCs and NPCs pretty much not wanting him around

[Seto]

Yeah, I'd consider myself as a dedicated roleplayer too, but that's just not the style of my group. And you can't develop interesting intra-party dynamics if you're... well, the only one trying. So, I can't give an estimate of how rare we are, but you might wanna take into consideration the fact that a lot are "shut down" by their group's style (and I guess some non-roleplayers become roleplayers as well if they play with a group that invests in it).

[BWR]

t you might wanna take into consideration the fact that a lot are "shut down" by their group's style (and I guess some non-roleplayers become roleplayers as well if they play with a group that invests in it).

An important consideration.

as far as I'm concerned, it's not an either/or situation. People can be 'dedicated roleplayers' and enjoy hanging out with people and not taking the game too seriously at the same time. I'd say my mix is about 50/50. Gaming is a social activity and I hang out with people I like. Most of us do stuff with eachother apart from roleplaying as well, usually going to movies, having the odd party. Games are a hobby and sometimes you just want relax with friends and do something while chatting about work and kids and home improvement. Some people hang at the bar, some watch sports, some play games.
When we play we tend towards long, involved campaigns where the setting, story and character development are important, not just combat. We still have plenty of out of game time to chat.

In general, I'd say different settings attract different kinds of people. For instance, most L5R players I've come across are big fans of the setting and do their best to play appropriate characters for the setting, with more emphasis on roleplaying and PC/NPC interaction than many D&D games I've played. D&D can, perhaps more easily than most other games I'm aware of, be played as a roleplaying-light game with more emphasis on mechanical interactions than characters or setting. Even so, there are plenty of 'dedicated roleplayers' in D&D who are more interested in the detailed setting and the characters than just beating up monsters. Just look at communities for things like Mystara or Blackmoor or Planescape.

[Amphetryon]

That is just silly.

Enjoying the statistical analysis is silly, or inquiring about citation of sources is silly?

[Vinegar Tom]

Personally, I'd call myself a dedicated roleplayer. Why? Because I'll never, ever go with any class, race or whatever unless I actually feel drawn to it, even if doing so would get me some kind of bonus. I'll also tend to go with feats and other abilities that fit my PC's background, even if they're not quite as good as other things I could have chosen (though I draw the line at poorly thought-out abilities that are just plain broken).

I will always create as detailed a background as the game requires, and I tend to throw an imaginative GM a few bones in the shape of character aspects not necessarily governed by the rules which I don't need to spend points on because they're useless, and usually minor weaknesses, but which, in the hands of any GM who isn't a sadist, give him/her a chance to flesh out my PC in ways which have absolutely nothing to do with the plot.

I will play characters I consider to be morally reprehensible, and I will tell the GM at the outset that I consider this to be the case (though of course I usually don't have to because there's very little point in having an evil PC unless the GM specifically asked for one), but I will play them to the hilt. I will also play people whose entire philosophy is broken, and I will admit this from the start, yet only allow the PC to question their belief-system when the GM reveals the necessary information to them. And if this never happens, I will play them as wrong-headed until the end of the game.

The PCs I will never play are the ones that just somehow feel wrong, and no amount of bonuses will change my mind. For example, I like Rogues. I don't care in the slightest that they aren't as powerful as Wizards - I just like the idea of people using fairly plausible abilities in interesting ways. I will never, ever roleplay a seriously stupid person because I have an exceptionally high IQ and it wouldn't be fun for me. But if I was to play a Fighter, I'd play one with a high INT (see a certain comic elsewhere on this site for a rather good example of this), because I'd find it much more amusing to use my traditional dump-stat to defeat my opponent in off-the-wall ways than just hitting him until he dies because I'm the Incredible Hulk. And I think that any good GM would go with that.

So, yeah, I'm a roleplayer, which would put me at a huge disadvantage in certain types of game. But hey, the word "game" heavily implies that nothing matters other than having fun, so I don't care how anybody plays so long as I don't accidentally sign up for the wrong kind of game and have to make an awkward exit.

[Kalmageddon]

Personally, I'd call myself a dedicated roleplayer. Why? Because I'll never, ever go with any class, race or whatever unless I actually feel drawn to it, even if doing so would get me some kind of bonus. I'll also tend to go with feats and other abilities that fit my PC's background, even if they're not quite as good as other things I could have chosen (though I draw the line at poorly thought-out abilities that are just plain broken).

I will always create as detailed a background as the game requires, and I tend to throw an imaginative GM a few bones in the shape of character aspects not necessarily governed by the rules which I don't need to spend points on because they're useless, and usually minor weaknesses, but which, in the hands of any GM who isn't a sadist, give him/her a chance to flesh out my PC in ways which have absolutely nothing to do with the plot.

I will play characters I consider to be morally reprehensible, and I will tell the GM at the outset that I consider this to be the case (though of course I usually don't have to because there's very little point in having an evil PC unless the GM specifically asked for one), but I will play them to the hilt. I will also play people whose entire philosophy is broken, and I will admit this from the start, yet only allow the PC to question their belief-system when the GM reveals the necessary information to them. And if this never happens, I will play them as wrong-headed until the end of the game.

The PCs I will never play are the ones that just somehow feel wrong, and no amount of bonuses will change my mind. For example, I like Rogues. I don't care in the slightest that they aren't as powerful as Wizards - I just like the idea of people using fairly plausible abilities in interesting ways. I will never, ever roleplay a seriously stupid person because I have an exceptionally high IQ and it wouldn't be fun for me. But if I was to play a Fighter, I'd play one with a high INT (see a certain comic elsewhere on this site for a rather good example of this), because I'd find it much more amusing to use my traditional dump-stat to defeat my opponent in off-the-wall ways than just hitting him until he dies because I'm the Incredible Hulk. And I think that any good GM would go with that.

So, yeah, I'm a roleplayer, which would put me at a huge disadvantage in certain types of game. But hey, the word "game" heavily implies that nothing matters other than having fun, so I don't care how anybody plays so long as I don't accidentally sign up for the wrong kind of game and have to make an awkward exit.

For someone with an exceptionally high IQ you sort of missed the point of the thread.
I'm inquiring on whether or not dedicated roleplayers are rare in your experience, not if you are one, though thaks for sharing I guess.

[Hyena]

Yeah, I know quite a lot of dedicated role-players. Unfortunately, all of them come with their quirks, and all of them suffer from "That's what my character would do!" syndrome. You know, when one excuses his own douchebaggery with role-playing.

[Kalmageddon]

Yeah, I know quite a lot of dedicated role-players. Unfortunately, all of them come with their quirks, and all of them suffer from "That's what my character would do!" syndrome. You know, when one excuses his own douchebaggery with role-playing.

Yeah, this too is something I've experienced. In fact I would say that a considerable amount of dedicated roleplayers I've known have the tendency of putting their enjoyment of the game first.
I want to play a really immersive campaign, sure, but I still want to paly with with people and characters I somewhat like. If one roleplays a boring, hateful douchebag, the fact that he's doing it well doesn't make it more ejoyable. Probably the kind of dedicated roleplayer I'm looking for would be one interested in a coopertive effort of making the campaing fun and enjoyable for everyone, with no prima donna complex just because he can roleplay well.
Which I guess thins my already small chances of assembling such a group...

[Airk]

Enjoying the statistical analysis is silly, or inquiring about citation of sources is silly?

Deliberately calling people out on sources when it is obvious that they are roughly estimating based on their own anecdotal data is 'silly' (I would choose a less polite word.). If you want to say "Hey, guys, it's obvious that you are making up these numbers." then say it, and have done, but I think everyone else has already figured that out by now, and doesn't need you to point it out.

Vinegar Tom: You are starting to slip into a Stormwind fallacy here - you can easily be a 'real roleplayer' and still make optimization decisions that don't 'feel actually drawn to it' (whatever that means.)

To return to the topic: I think that very few people are exclusively a "dedicated roleplayer" and very few people are exclusively NOT dedicated roleplayers. I think the prevailing influence is, in fact, the GM, other players and general 'mood' of the game. Yes, there are some people who will respond to even the most vigorous attempts at stimulating roleplaying with "I...uh....tell him how bad it will be if he doesn't help!" but those people are a small minority. Most people who enjoy these games are willing to step up and deliver some lines if the rest of the table seems to be supporting that sort of thing.

Of course, some games are MUCH better at driving this sort of thing than others, and D&D, honestly, is notoriously poor at it, requiring the players and GM to step it up unsupported, whereas games that place some sort of mechanical emphasis on character roleplaying give people a motivation to try which both helps people over any initial embarrassment AND creates a cycle of reinforcement - once other people at the table are roleplaying, it becomes easier to do so, which means more people at the table are roleplaying, which means...etc. D&D can have the latter too (Hell, so can Middle Earth Quest, Arkham Asylum, or any game where each player has a 'character'), but it needs to be bootstrapped by the conscious effort of the players and GM.

I think it's actually pretty easy to get together a game where people seriously roleplay, if you state up front that, "Hey guys, I really want to seriously roleplay in this game." and then lead by example.

[Amphetryon]

Deliberately calling people out on sources when it is obvious that they are roughly estimating based on their own anecdotal data is 'silly' (I would choose a less polite word.). If you want to say "Hey, guys, it's obvious that you are making up these numbers." then say it, and have done, but I think everyone else has already figured that out by now, and doesn't need you to point it out.

It's not obvious to me; folks who used numbers to support their arguments could reasonably have pulled them from legitimate sources, either from other roleplaying information sources such as surveys found online or via their own formal or semi-formal datamining efforts over the years - we're in a fairly geeky and math-oriented hobby, after all.

[jedipotter]

Enjoying the statistical analysis is silly, or inquiring about citation of sources is silly?

Silly in general.

A person asks In Each of your Opinions ''how rare are dedicated roleplayers?'' So this is just one person asking some others what they think. It's not some type of super hard core double blind research study deciding the fate of the world. Maybe one or two people on the whole boards do hard core studies for universities or think tanks, the rest of us are just gamers with other jobs.

So for you to ask for proof is just silly. It is not like any of us have the time and millions of dollars to do a true hard core survey. We are just normal people.

So when I say ''D&D is the most popular RPG of all time'', it is my option, based on what I know and think...and I'm a very good judge of things, so that statement is likely true. Now did I take the last year and ask every gamer in the world, in some controlled study....no.

In general, you might want to be careful about ''studies'' in general. Who ever does them can stack and manipulate the results. And a lot of people are confused at best, and lie at worse. It's not like a 'study' is as pure as the wind driven snow.

For example, ask a bunch of 13 year olds ''what is your favorite edition of D&D?", and they all say ''4th !", you can then say ''4th edition is the most popular'', and just ignore/hide the fact that you only asked teens.

And sure you can look at a study and say ''oh they did this or asked this or did not do this'' that, in your option you don't like or don't think was right. Then you can throw the whole study out. But then that is true of ALL studies. So you have to throw them ALL out. They are all meaningless.

[Airk]

It's not obvious to me; folks who used numbers to support their arguments could reasonably have pulled them from legitimate sources, either from other roleplaying information sources such as surveys found online or via their own formal or semi-formal datamining efforts over the years - we're in a fairly geeky and math-oriented hobby, after all.

I think you GROSSLY overestimate the statistical rigor of both people in this thread and, in fact, RPG designers/publishers/creators in general. FFS, this is a hobby where most people can't even tell you how many COPIES of a game they have sold.

Anyway, since apparently you were actually making an honest request, I shall give you an honest answer: Everyone in this thread is making up %$&%^%&%^ numbers, because there are no real ones to be had.

[Tengu_temp]

I, for one, would love to see the studies that produced the percentages some folks in this thread are citing. Information on sample sizes and methodology of data collection would be interesting.

Citing? Let's see some quotes.

I imagine that Burning Wheel would have something like 80% dedicated roleplayers and 20% casual players

As a very crude estimate: I would guess maybe 10-15% of the entire tabletop gaming population is like that

I'd say 33/33/33.

Nobody's citing anything. People are making guesses and estimates, based on personal experience, anecdotes, or just winging it. And nobody's using numbers to support their point of view, because there wasn't any argument here until you came and started one.

[NichG]

Maybe one or two people on the whole boards do hard core studies for universities or think tanks, the rest of us are just gamers with other jobs.

Well, I personally know of at least two other physicists who hang out on these forums, and thats just a narrow slice of academia. So I do think there are a fair number of people here who can do what you call 'hard core' studies.

That said, that doesn't mean said people will automatically do so to answer a conversational question, since that'd lead to a lot of 'I'll get back to you in 3 months, if we get the funding for it'.

[erikun]

Define what you mean by dedicated and really care and really put a lot of effort into the pure roleplay aspect. Because what can be dedicated effort towards roleplay for one person could be a very lackluster passing interest compared to another. A very focused group that spends a lot of time on details and roleplaying social aspects might find a player who is exciting about the setting and ready to stab some orcs to be very flippant and have an inconsiderate attitude. A group more along the lines of "eating chips and drinking beer" and who doesn't care about context would find the same player unusually nitpicky and strange for making decisions based on setting lore.

I've found that it tends to be a mix of people, with most gravitating towards the middle. The largest number of players that I've seen are excited about the genre and perhaps somewhat interested in the setting, but are fine with joking around and do not spend a lot of effort remembering all the plot details from week to week. There is only the occasional player who simply shows up to hang out and stab something when needed - frequently the boyfriend/girlfriend/housemate who is also playing - and there is only the occasional player who is so focused that they remember all the details of previous sessions easily. I find that a lot of people enjoy the game but are too busy during the week to spend a lot of time on it.

Age tends to be a big factor in this as well, I think. People in high school and college tend to have more free time, and so more time to focus on the game. People with families and 40+ hour jobs tend to have less time to think about the game outside the time set aside specifically for gaming.

[jedipotter]

Well, I personally know of at least two other physicists who hang out on these forums, and thats just a narrow slice of academia. So I do think there are a fair number of people here who can do what you call 'hard core' studies.

.

Do physicists do studies where they poll the public? That does not sound like a job for a physicist. Or are you talking about the physicists that do studies like ''more lawn mower accidents happen during summer time'' or ''D&D books in a bag weight more then D&D PDF's on a flash drive''?

[NichG]

Do physicists do studies where they poll the public? That does not sound like a job for a physicist. Or are you talking about the physicists that do studies like ''more lawn mower accidents happen during summer time'' or ''D&D books in a bag weight more then D&D PDF's on a flash drive''?

I'm talking about physicists who in general have statistical training and can calculate error intervals and do data modelling against various distributions, and in general are in a 'quant' career where being able to make careful statements about what given data does or does not indicate is a necessary skill and part of the job.