How would you rate your role-playing or your confidence at it

[Ameraaaaaa]

Basically i think player's confidence in their ability to rp exists in a range from "I'm bad at this" to "I'm the best at this! I should be a actor!" Regardless of their ability to actually do it.

And of course not every game needs deep heartfelt storytelling. Yes i have heard stories of campaigns bringing players to tears from touching moments but most games aren't that nor do they need to be. Whether your joking around with pals or having the best combat of your life or even just chilling killing goblins it's up to the group what you want.

My point is that some people lack confidence/skill in their ability to role play while others don't. Note that confidence and skill are 2 separate things.

Using myself as an example ever since that one time i was told i was having a really inconsistent character my confidence is low (which i realised he was right given that minutes ago he was frothing in the mouth to kill his sworn enemy but then gave up, partly because i wanted to switch characters.)

I'd say i got better but my role-playing ability is below average imo. It feels that way sometimes at least. I'd say my consistency in replying, and my proper player etiquette make up for that. At least i hope it does. (Sidenote. I sometimes wonder if just doing what irl me would do would result in better rp since i certainly know myself better then most of my characters.)

So what do you guys think about your confidence and/or skill in role-playing? Any ideas on how one becomes skillful or what that even means.

[KorvinStarmast]

Basically i think player's confidence in their ability to rp exists in a range from "I'm bad at this" to "I'm the best at this! I should be a actor!" Regardless of their ability to actually do it.

And of course not every game needs deep heartfelt storytelling. Yes i have heard stories of campaigns bringing players to tears from touching moments but most games aren't that nor do they need to be. Whether your joking around with pals or having the best combat of your life or even just chilling killing goblins it's up to the group what you want.

My point is that some people lack confidence/skill in their ability to role play while others don't. Note that confidence and skill are 2 separate things.

Using myself as an example ever since that one time i was told i was having a really inconsistent character my confidence is low (which i realised he was right given that minutes ago he was frothing in the mouth to kill his sworn enemy but then gave up, partly because i wanted to switch characters.)

I'd say i got better but my role-playing ability is below average imo. It feels that way sometimes at least. I'd say my consistency in replying, and my proper player etiquette make up for that. At least i hope it does. (Sidenote. I sometimes wonder if just doing what irl me would do would result in better rp since i certainly know myself better then most of my characters.)

So what do you guys think about your confidence and/or skill in role-playing? Any ideas on how one becomes skillful or what that even means.

Confidence 10/10. Skill about 8/10.

[King of Nowhere]

I'm pretty bad at it. I have good ideas, but bad acting.
fortunately, I know a guy who's doing theater, so when I had to introduce the big bad - and in a few other pivotal campaign moments - I gave him a script and asked him to make some audio recordings. it was wonderful. I had a crazy nymph with demigod powers convinced that she has to exterminate all life to end suffering, swarming a major city with hellwasps and colossal scorpions, riding a conjoined-twin-double-tarrasque, trashing the highest level npcs available like they're of no consequence, all the while apologizing to her victims, telling them it's for their own good; it would have been a tragedy to describe all that without the proper phatos. It was perhaps the best scene I ever conceived, but I would have never been able to do it justice myself.

[Hrugner]

A little below average I'd guess. As a player I more or less nail it, I'm sticking to one character and there's enough interactions that I don't feel like I need to stress any one trait too much. I will fudge their interests and level of engagement if the game isn't moving at a good pace, so the characters do end up being a bit fuzzy.

As a DM, I tend to over do it when making the characters distinct, and then that distinctiveness slowly wears off as the character gets less important to the story. I'll frequently forget important traits when bringing a character back into the story later. I make notes, tie the characters to people I know in real life to sort of nudge my memory, but still end up missing bits here and there.

[EggKookoo]

It's important to remember that roleplaying isn't synonymous with acting. At its heart, roleplaying is about decisions. It's about what my character would do in this situation, not necessarily about what the character's accent would be or anything like that.

So first focus on motivations and goals. Make sure you know as much as you can about what your character thinks and feels about things. I have a paladin who dislikes sword. He's a big manly-man (well, dragonborn) and he finds swords to be too effeminate. Axes are the thing! Hammers are okay but axes are best! I didn't design that into him for any reason other than to give him a prejudiced attitude about something fairly common in the game, but it provides fodder for all kinds of snarky side comments about the other PCs' weapons. It's led to some fun interactions. We found a +1 magic sword (we're all 3rd level) and he picked it up, sighed, and handed it over to the barbarian because "I just can't." Later, the barb found a better axe and swapped out the sword, and my paladin was overjoyed. I had him geek out about the benefits of the axe over the sword (complete BS I made up on the spot) and the barb player found it funny, and now they're best buds.

None of this has to do with acting or performing or anything. When I'm on a roll I do tend to slip into character-voice. It's easy, I just talk like Rocket from GotG but with a deeper growly quality to it. But it's not necessary.

I guess my point is, if you build motivations, attitudes, biases, and things like that into your character, and you understand them, the "performance" part of roleplaying will emerge on its own. And it gives your PC all kinds of personality, especially if those traits aren't always virtuous.

[Easy e]

I am really good at planning the role-play and the character. I have three personality traits to work from, Quirks/habits, and Rooting Interest. I may even have a sketch of a character arc for the character.

Then I start playing and all that goes out the window. In the heat of the moment I forget my character voice, I forget their personality traits, and I forget everything I have documented about them. Instead, they end up being more paranoid, violent, exaggerated, and crazy versions of myself; which is not a good thing for role-playing. :(

So, I would say I am a solid 2 out of 5. Those crazed, exaggerated versions of myself can be fun for others but ultimately it is not role-playing in my mind and actually diminishes my fun when I fall back into those ruts.

[Ameraaaaaa]

It's important to remember that roleplaying isn't synonymous with acting. At its heart, roleplaying is about decisions. It's about what my character would do in this situation, not necessarily about what the character's accent would be or anything like that.

So first focus on motivations and goals. Make sure you know as much as you can about what your character thinks and feels about things. I have a paladin who dislikes sword. He's a big manly-man (well, dragonborn) and he finds swords to be too effeminate. Axes are the thing! Hammers are okay but axes are best! I didn't design that into him for any reason other than to give him a prejudiced attitude about something fairly common in the game, but it provides fodder for all kinds of snarky side comments about the other PCs' weapons. It's led to some fun interactions. We found a +1 magic sword (we're all 3rd level) and he picked it up, sighed, and handed it over to the barbarian because "I just can't." Later, the barb found a better axe and swapped out the sword, and my paladin was overjoyed. I had him geek out about the benefits of the axe over the sword (complete BS I made up on the spot) and the barb player found it funny, and now they're best buds.

None of this has to do with acting or performing or anything. When I'm on a roll I do tend to slip into character-voice. It's easy, I just talk like Rocket from GotG but with a deeper growly quality to it. But it's not necessary.

I guess my point is, if you build motivations, attitudes, biases, and things like that into your character, and you understand them, the "performance" part of roleplaying will emerge on its own. And it gives your PC all kinds of personality, especially if those traits aren't always virtuous.

I do think that's true. Like i have 2 characters right now in this forum specifically and both are opposite ends of the spectrum in how well i understand them. 1 is a ageless mind reading cat who's thing is being a very selfish jerk. He isn't heartless (just recently comforted a scared child) but most of the time he only thinks about himself. On the other hand my other character i barely understand especially since a backstory wasn't necessary for the game. My character is a clever hacker who is polite. His only other trait is he is very proud about said hacking ability.

I am really good at planning the role-play and the character. I have three personality traits to work from, Quirks/habits, and Rooting Interest. I may even have a sketch of a character arc for the character.

Then I start playing and all that goes out the window. In the heat of the moment I forget my character voice, I forget their personality traits, and I forget everything I have documented about them. Instead, they end up being more paranoid, violent, exaggerated, and crazy versions of myself; which is not a good thing for role-playing. :(

So, I would say I am a solid 2 out of 5. Those crazed, exaggerated versions of myself can be fun for others but ultimately it is not role-playing in my mind and actually diminishes my fun when I fall back into those ruts.

I get you man. I don't have much experience roleplaying in person or with my voice so i tend to just basically playing myself when i do so. Most of my role-playing skill only comes out when i play by post.

[Azures_Finest]

We keep our games pretty light and, as such, we love to ham it up.

For whatever reason, society has said that almost anything fantasy related is somehow steeped in British accents. Soooo, when we are roleplaying, I tend to go with a Giles from Buffy-posh British accent. One of the guys i play with is totally Billy Idol accent at the table. Occasionally, one of us will jump out of our chair and make some glamorous movement, like pulling our holy symbol out of our belt to turn undead whilst making a 'rockstar pose.' It makes for some serious laugh out loud moments.

I'd say our RP abilities are 5/10 but with a 10/10 ridiculous factor. As for confidence, 10/10 to make it as silly as possible :)

[False God]

I would rate my skill and confidence in my skill both around a 7.5.

But if "skill" is measured as being able to get people to believe I am the character as an actor filling the role, then my skill is much lower, probably a 5. I'm a much strong narrator role-player. If it's just a simple measure of "can you stay in character and make decisions that are in character" then back to 7.5.

Part of the problem lies in the fact that 2/3 of my characters is female and I am not. I've found it difficult for people to "see me as the character" regardless of how good of a job I'm doing. I'm perfectly confident I'm doing the character justice, but I've got a higher bar to reach when being seen as the character.

[animorte]

It's important to remember that roleplaying isn't synonymous with acting.

So very much this. There was a thread several months ago in which I was in a discussion about how similar/different role-playing and acting are. While absolutely not the same thing, they share some qualities.

I guess my point is, if you build motivations, attitudes, biases, and things like that into your character, and you understand them, the "performance" part of roleplaying will emerge on its own. And it gives your PC all kinds of personality, especially if those traits aren't always virtuous.

The important part of playing is just knowing what your character wants to accomplish, how and why. If you can communicate that effectively, that's all that matters, whether you are comfortable "getting into character" or not.

As far as rating myself, definitely a 9/10 confidence. Most of the time I can find my character's motivation fairly easily and I know how I wish to display it. I'll go with a 7/10 (baseline) on actually achieving that though.

I say that because, while being the most experienced player in my group, I tend toward a leader/party-face more often than not. When I'm doing that, it's much more in my comfort zone, so it requires less effort. In that case it's generally a 9-10/10 on skill. In other cases, I have less experience, so that will bring it down to about 7/10, but it doesn't diminish my flawed perspective of my own confidence.

[Vahnavoi]

I rate it per character, not in general. As with acting, roles vary in difficulty, so before knowing first thing about a role I'm going to play, I try to keep my mouth shut. For random roles, my go-to answer is "no clue, let's find out".

[Mastikator]

I'd say I'm a pretty decent roleplayer with good range. Confidence is 10/10, it's easy to fake and the fake is as good as the real deal.

[King of Nowhere]

I would say that acting is part of roleplaying, but not all of it. as others said, the two main parts are "how would this character behave" and acting.
and yes, people can be good at one and not at the other. they are fairly unrelated skills. some may even say that acting is not a part of roleplaying, but being able to spice up your descriptions besides the strictly mechanical is an important contributor to the tabletop experience, especially on the dm side. "the big bad comes with her army and kills everyone because she had deep psycological issues. you can see she's really, really powerful" works well in conveying the message, but it's unlikely to engage the players.

[Quertus]

How would you rate your role-playing or your confidence at it. Note that confidence and skill are 2 separate things. So what do you guys think about your confidence and/or skill in role-playing? Any ideas on how one becomes skillful or what that even means.

It's important to remember that roleplaying isn't synonymous with acting. At its heart, roleplaying is about decisions. It's about what my character would do in this situation, not necessarily about what the character's accent would be or anything like that.

So very much this. There was a thread several months ago in which I was in a discussion about how similar/different role-playing and acting are. While absolutely not the same thing, they share some qualities.

The important part of playing is just knowing what your character wants to accomplish, how and why. If you can communicate that effectively, that's all that matters, whether you are comfortable "getting into character" or not.

I rate it per character, not in general. As with acting, roles vary in difficulty, so before knowing first thing about a role I'm going to play,

Yeah, add me to the chorus of "roleplaying isn't acting", it's making decisions for the character, as the character. Roleplaying is writing the script, acting is about delivery. And it varies by character.

I'll go against the grain, and say that my confidence is probably lower than my skill wrt "where I would stand if everyone were lined up in order". Shrug.

[Vahnavoi]

Anything that involves making decision like another person would do is fundamentally acting, period. People arguing for roleplaying not being acting are focused on superficial qualities of acting visible to other people, and neglecting deeper similarities. Properly playing a role requires a human to understand what, how and why a character would act the way they do in a given situation, regardless of whether they're doing improv or following a script, regardless of whether they're doing theater or a tabletop game. Pioneers of tabletop roleplaying games compared the hobby to radio theater for a reason.

"Making decisions" is not a counterpoint; it's completely normal for a human actor following a script to make decisions for their character, as their character, constantly. Or what else did you think something like maintaining an accent, that is, actively speaking like another person, requires? We don't even need to talk of cases where an actor actively lobbied for changing a script because scripted actions did not make sense for their character.

[EggKookoo]

Anything that involves making decision like another person would do is fundamentally acting, period. People arguing for roleplaying not being acting are focused on superficial qualities of acting visible to other people, and neglecting deeper similarities. Properly playing a role requires a human to understand what, how and why a character would act the way they do in a given situation, regardless of whether they're doing improv or following a script, regardless of whether they're doing theater or a tabletop game. Pioneers of tabletop roleplaying games compared the hobby to radio theater for a reason.

"Making decisions" is not a counterpoint; it's completely normal for a human actor following a script to make decisions for their character, as their character, constantly. Or what else did you think something like maintaining an accent, that is, actively speaking like another person, requires? We don't even need to talk of cases where an actor actively lobbied for changing a script because scripted actions did not make sense for their character.

I feel like that generalizes "acting" too much. In this mindset, a novelist is acting when writing out the actions and decisions of the characters in the book. But if that's acting, what isn't?

The thing is, when people think "acting" they're typically thinking of the outward performance. I can be a full-on, 100% roleplayer in a TTRPG and never act/perform in any conventional sense of the terms. All of my decisions can be expressed in the form of "my character does X" or "my character says Y" without invoking any personal theatrics. No one would say I was still acting, but I'd definitely be roleplaying.

On the other hand, if I stand up and speak theatrically for my PC, with accent and phrasing and even stance, most people would say I'm acting or performing. But I can do that without really having a solid handle on my PC's motivations, biases, needs, and other such drivers. It's "acting" but not necessarily good roleplaying.

It's worth it to make the distinction.

[Mastikator]

So is the consensus on this thread that there is zero overlap between physically acting as your character (with your voice and mannderism, but potentially also with your costume), and roleplaying your character? And therefore, someone who dresses up as their character and acts them flawlessly but still makes decisions based on their own priorities/reason is doing zero roleplaying.

[Quertus]

So is the consensus on this thread that there is zero overlap between physically acting as your character (with your voice and mannderism, but potentially also with your costume), and roleplaying your character? And therefore, someone who dresses up as their character and acts them flawlessly but still makes decisions based on their own priorities/reason is doing zero roleplaying.

I don’t know about “consensus”, but that’s close enough to a correct usage of those words, yes. One could do all that, and still receive a score of 0% on their roleplaying.

[EggKookoo]

So is the consensus on this thread that there is zero overlap between physically acting as your character (with your voice and mannderism, but potentially also with your costume), and roleplaying your character? And therefore, someone who dresses up as their character and acts them flawlessly but still makes decisions based on their own priorities/reason is doing zero roleplaying.

I would argue making decision not based on your character's properties but your own is, indeed, not roleplaying. Unless your PC is essentially you, in which case you are roleplaying pretty much coincidentally.

Edit: To clarfiy, I don't know about zero overlap. Dressing up and physically acting as your character implies you're making some decisions based on the character's properties. Namely, what the character likes to wear and how the character behaves and presents. So there's some overlap there.

I think the contention comes from the thought that doing the performance is the heart of roleplaying. I don't think it is. I think the performance is the expression of roleplaying. It's what happens when you're properly roleplaying, because you've fleshed out the PC in your mind. The heart of roleplaying is internal. It's what makes your PC love, hate, fear, want. It's the motive power that informs you, so that you can make good roleplaying decisions for your character. If you're acting and performing, great, that brings it all together and makes it alive at the table. But, IMO at least, the performance stuff is (mostly) meaningless unless you're doing it in the service of those character traits.

Wearing a funny hat isn't roleplaying. Wearing a funny hat because your PC wears funny hats is light roleplaying. Having a PC that grew up in an orphanage and stumbled across a forgotten crate of obscure, strange hats, and kept the location of the crate secret but wore a different hat each day in order to break the ice and form long-lasting friendships with the other orphans, only to have evil sorcerers kidnap and sacrifice all the other orphans, but you got away with one last hat, so now you seek out hats as much as you can out of a sense of honor and memory of your friends and as a kind of security blanket thing for yourself, so you as the player wear a different funny hat to each session to represent that... that's strong roleplaying.

[King of Nowhere]

I think the performance is the expression of roleplaying. It's what happens when you're properly roleplaying, because you've fleshed out the PC in your mind. The heart of roleplaying is internal.

that could catch the relation better than anything.
and incidentally, acting is still strongly instrumental to roleplaying. because you may have the best roleplaying in the world, but if you can't act on it, can't express it, then nobody else at your table is going to figure it out.

[EggKookoo]

that could catch the relation better than anything.
and incidentally, acting is still strongly instrumental to roleplaying. because you may have the best roleplaying in the world, but if you can't act on it, can't express it, then nobody else at your table is going to figure it out.

You can always just describe it.

"I try not to be too rude, but I ask the bartender to repeat what he just said."

Really that's how most of my players do it.

But I agree that the full experience involves some level of performance.

[Vahnavoi]

I feel like that generalizes "acting" too much. In this mindset, a novelist is acting when writing out the actions and decisions of the characters in the book. But if that's acting, what isn't?

A novelist acting out scenes in their head, or even acting them out before a mirror as the same kind of lonely busywork an actor might do to rehearse a role, is dirt common.

As for what isn't acting, the answer is super simple: it stops when you get away from thinking what, how and why of a person in a staged situation. So, for a novelist, when they stop playing characters in their head and start thinking of fixing typos, formatting text, worrying about what a publisher will let them get away with, etc., that's when they've moved from acting to other parts of being a writer.

It's very straightforward and perfectly clearcut when you analyze your own experience. It only appears murky since you can't see private creative processes of other people.

The thing is, when people think "acting" they're typically thinking of the outward performance.

Yes; the typical person also isn't an actor and hasn't thought too deeply about it. Similarly, if you ask a typical person what a "roleplaying game" is, they're likely to give you a superficial explanation about how it's about rolling dice to kill stuff, or maybe putting on elf ears and going to playfight with your friends. Or something about BDSM.

I can be a full-on, 100% roleplayer in a TTRPG and never act/perform in any conventional sense of the terms. All of my decisions can be expressed in the form of "my character does X" or "my character says Y" without invoking any personal theatrics. No one would say I was still acting, but I'd definitely be roleplaying.

I would say you're acting AND I would also say you're doing a poor job at it. Forming and thinking about these kinds of flat statements of intent and action are baby steps of acting; inability to express them as anything else is a sign of not advancing past those baby steps. These kinds of flat statements are how little kids play pretend; measure of acting skill, and by extension roleplaying skill, is how far beyond that a person can go.

On the other hand, if I stand up and speak theatrically for my PC, with accent and phrasing and even stance, most people would say I'm acting or performing. But I can do that without really having a solid handle on my PC's motivations, biases, needs, and other such drivers. It's "acting" but not necessarily good roleplaying.

It's worth it to make the distinction.

The distinction is between two forms of bad acting, and two forms of bad roleplaying, not between acting and roleplaying. If you try to put on such a performance without solid handle of the what, how and why, said performance will be inconsistent, false and out-of-character in eyes of others. The problem is, precisely, trying to capture outward traits of something without understanding the internal process.

So is the consensus on this thread that there is zero overlap between physically acting as your character (with your voice and mannderism, but potentially also with your costume), and roleplaying your character?

I'm obviously part of no such consensus and hold that any such consensus would be wrong as a matter of fact; the process of physically acting as your character always and necessarly involves many of the same mental processes as mentally imagining such actions. Seriously, how do people even imagine something as simple as speaking dialogue (as one example of many) would work if this was not the case?

And therefore, someone who dresses up as their character and acts them flawlessly but still makes decisions based on their own priorities/reason is doing zero roleplaying.

This is not a physically meaningful concept. For a human, flawlessly dressing up as someone else means having a mental theory of how that other person would decide to dress. The only case where zero roleplaying is happening is also the one where zero acting is happening: the person IS the character and naturally behaves and dresses this way.

[Quertus]

Any ideas on how one becomes skillful or what that even means.

So, to this question, I generally answer with a story. Once upon a time, I was in a group where there was one iconic question, roughly of the form, "the version of your character who lives in my head would have done X. You had them do Y. What do I not understand about your character, that drove them to do Y instead of X?"

Just the practice of answering that question, of everyone in the room thinking in terms of who the character is and why they took the actions they did, of hearing alternate perspectives and ways of approaching problems, was probably the single greatest boon to my roleplaying.

As to "what does it mean to be skillful at roleplaying", for me, it's a matter of the character fitting like a glove, of being well-worn enough that, when a scenario is given, I don't have to consciously think about how they'll respond, I just know their response as surely as (well, perhaps, more surely than) I know my own. That, when I'm in the zone, when I'm in flow state, is when I feel I have developed the skills to roleplay that character. See also "why Quertus prefers to run existing characters", because only the flow state portion of a character's career, only the part where I can actually roleplay them, is worth playing, is of any value to me.

[EggKookoo]

I would say you're acting AND I would also say you're doing a poor job at it.

But I have no intention of acting. I'm just describing what my character does, in a kind of diagrammatic way. I'm not sure I can buy that means I'm acting poorly.

If you go for a walk, I wouldn't say you're driving poorly.

[Vahnavoi]

But I have no intention of acting. I'm just describing what my character does, in a kind of diagrammatic way. I'm not sure I can buy that means I'm acting poorly.

If you go for a walk, I wouldn't say you're driving poorly.

When you walk, do you consciously think "I'm walking" every second, or do you just walk?

People, regularly and frequently, fail to recognize their own intentions from analysis, because they've internalized and automated the root process to the degree it's invisible to them. Here, the root process being how you get your descriptions. If you are deriving them from considering what a person in a staged situation would do, how and why, you are in fact acting, and this discussion is equivalent to me slapping you awake in the middle of sleepwalking to draw attention to the fact that you did, in fact, walk, despite "having no intention" to.

[EggKookoo]

When you walk, do you consciously think "I'm walking" every second, or do you just walk?

People, regularly and frequently, fail to recognize their own intentions from analysis, because they've internalized and automated the root process to the degree it's invisible to them. Here, the root process being how you get your descriptions. If you are deriving them from considering what a person in a staged situation would do, how and why, you are in fact acting, and this discussion is equivalent to me slapping you awake in the middle of sleepwalking to draw attention to the fact that you did, in fact, walk, despite "having no intention" to.

Okay, so we're kind of batting around definitions. But I'm using acting as synonymous, more or less, with performing. Specifically, you are subjectively assuming the role or persona of a character and behaving as though you are that character.

Acting is "You, sir! Stop!"

Describing is "I tell the guy to stop."

You can say my example of describing is still acting, but obviously I don't use that definition. And I don't know how many people do.

[Vahnavoi]

@EggKooKoo: You keep trying to draw a line in the sand, when you should instead think of how one thing leads to another. There's a throughline from description to action that's fairly obvious, especially if you imagine all these version being performed as spoken word:

Case one: a player flatly says "I tell the guy to stop". This is a litte kid playing pretend. They have an idea in their head how their character would act, how and why in the situation given. But they their capacity to communicate it to others is limited.

Case two: a player says "I tell the guy to STOP!", putting emphasis and volume to the actual character stament. This follows the format of description, but the player has realized that saying the relevant word in the way their character would communicates more information to other people.

Case three: a player vigorously shouts "STOP!". The format of description has been abandoned, because the player has internalized their role, and can convey they're speaking as part of that role without following the format.

Every version is a performance, every version is acting, what changes is the quality of it. Drawing your line in the sand only really gives people an excuse to not try beyond the bare minimum. It's even more important over text - "show, not tell", as the oft-cited motto goes. Unsurprisingly, many famous people saying that were specifically playwrights.

[EggKookoo]

You keep trying to draw a line in the sand, when you should instead think of how one thing leads to another.

I'm aware of how one thing leads to another. I'm not confused by that. I'm just trying to say I see the one thing as distinct from the other. If one leads to the other, I'm not sure how it could be otherwise.

Frankly I don't understand your argument. I think I've made mine pretty clear but maybe not?

[False God]

If any sort of "thinking about how another person acts" at all is "step 1 of acting" then the mere act of existing in life and making any effort to understand others is "some form of acting".

Which is far to broad a definition of acting to be any sort of useful.

And personally, the fact that Vahnavoi explicitly wrote it as a form of "poor acting" is exactly what pisses me off when dealing with the "acting/narrating" debate. Narrating isn't its own thing! It's just poor acting! And since roleplaying IS acting under this definition, any form of non-acting roleplaying is just some form of bad acting means it's bad roleplaying.

And frankly, thats a garbage argument.

[gbaji]

A novelist acting out scenes in their head, or even acting them out before a mirror as the same kind of lonely busywork an actor might do to rehearse a role, is dirt common.

But that's not the "acting" as you describe it later. I think you are trying really hard to equate acting and roleplaying, but also equate acting to "performing" the character, and thus measure any "roleplaying" that doesn't include "performing" as "poor acting" (and therefore also poor acting).

Most people (myself included) make a firm distinction between roleplaying and acting. One is about "playing the role", meaning that you are making decisions about what the character would think or do in any given situation ("playing" as in "playing in a game", not "participating in a play"). The other is about "acting like the character". Which includes speech patterns, manerisims, etc. One is not the same as the other IMO.

As for what isn't acting, the answer is super simple: it stops when you get away from thinking what, how and why of a person in a staged situation.

But "failing to think about what, how, and why of a person in a staged situation" is *also* not "descriptive roleplaying", right? If I say "I do X", that's not the same as my physically acting out doing X. But in order to say "I do X", I also have to think about what, how, and why the role I'm playing is doing "X". The physical "acting" is not required for this. So while your statement is true for acting, it's also true for a definition of roleplaying, which precludes what you are calling "acting".

So, for a novelist, when they stop playing characters in their head and start thinking of fixing typos, formatting text, worrying about what a publisher will let them get away with, etc., that's when they've moved from acting to other parts of being a writer.

None of which describes what someone is doing when they describe what their character in a TTRPG is doing rather than acting it out via dialogue, accent, manerisms, body movements, etc. So... Correct. But irrelevant to a discussion of what roleplaying is versus acting.

I would say you're acting AND I would also say you're doing a poor job at it. Forming and thinking about these kinds of flat statements of intent and action are baby steps of acting; inability to express them as anything else is a sign of not advancing past those baby steps. These kinds of flat statements are how little kids play pretend; measure of acting skill, and by extension roleplaying skill, is how far beyond that a person can go.

Again though, only because you are measuring the quality of "roleplaying" based on how well (or whether) some is "acting". Many people (I'd argue that most people) don't make this equivalance.

It is not at all "baby steps roleplaying" to establish a backstory for the character, likes, dislikes, personality quirks, goals, etc, and then play them out in a game, descriptively based on "event->choice->action" methods. That can, in fact, be some of the very best form of roleplaying. It is literally "playing the role".

Can roleplaying be augmented by acting/performance? Yes. Sometimes. Honestly, it can often get in the way of the game (let's not forget that we are playing a game, here, so spending 5 seconds telling me what you are doing is often preferrable to 5 minues of pontificated "showing" me). But sure, if it adds to the external perception of the character traits, it's a good thing. But it's also very possible to do the acting bits, but not the roleplaying bits. And that's often an epic fail IMO.

If you try to put on such a performance without solid handle of the what, how and why, said performance will be inconsistent, false and out-of-character in eyes of others. The problem is, precisely, trying to capture outward traits of something without understanding the internal process.

IME, I've far more often run into players who put on performances as a substitution for real character roleplaying, than the other way around. And I guess from a "game disruption" point of view, a player who is descriptively roleplaying poorly, doesn't cause any real problems to the game. Not terribly interesting or unique, but isn't going to slow down the game. A player who is acting, but not roleplayign well, *is* likely causing disruption. Time taken making dramatic speeches and playing out every dialogue is time taken at the table for everyone, but if they're still playing the same character over and over, there's no actual "roleplaying" going on, so why?

If I want to sit at a table watching someone performing, I'll go to a local improv. And get drinks and snacks while I'm there. I also wan't the "game" part of RPG to be present.

I'm obviously part of no such consensus and hold that any such consensus would be wrong as a matter of fact; the process of physically acting as your character always and necessarly involves many of the same mental processes as mentally imagining such actions. Seriously, how do people even imagine something as simple as speaking dialogue (as one example of many) would work if this was not the case?

Very simple. The player plays the same character (or slight variation thereof) every time the play. I've literally seen this a dozen times. It is entirely possible to spend a lot of time and effort on the "performance" of "acting the character" without spending much or any time at all on actually defining the character, what makes them tick, and heck, what makes them different from the last 5 characters you played other than superficial ones (name, sex, maybe style of dress, etc).

If you are not actually "speaking dialogue" as the character, but just speaking dialogue for the sake of hearing yourself speak? Great acting. Terrible roleplaying.

This is not a physically meaningful concept. For a human, flawlessly dressing up as someone else means having a mental theory of how that other person would decide to dress. The only case where zero roleplaying is happening is also the one where zero acting is happening: the person IS the character and naturally behaves and dresses this way.

Wrong. If every character you play is essentially the same, then you are not roleplaying (or are roleplaying "poorly" at the least). You can absolutely be dressing up in costume, using an accent, flowery dialogue, physical movements, etc. That's all acting. And it could even be good acting. But, it's not roleplaying because you aren't playing the "role of this character". You're just playing the same thing, over and over, and making up for those roleplaying deficiencies by overacting the part.

And if the only things that change are those physical performance bits (the accent changes, the language changes, etc), but you aren't actually changing how the character thinks, what they want, or don't want, like or don't like, etc, then you are also not roleplaying.

Roleplaying is about playing the role. You decide who this characters is. It is 100% about making the choices that character makes in the game, based on what the character would want. Those choices, which define roleplaying can be 100% encapsulated via descriptive play (ie: "I do X"). Any additional performance stuff may be nice, but it not required at all to be roleplaying. And yes, I happen to be one of those players who feels that acting/performing can often detract from the RP experience.

I've just seen far too many really terrible players who think they make up for their terrible RP skills with over the top acting. So no. Make it clear that rolepaying and acting are two very different things. Then get the roleplaying part right. Then, maybe, if you really feel like it, try acting out the things you are having your character do instead of just describing them. But don't for one minute think that because you are "acting" like you are a Shakespearian character, that you must be roleplaying.

And personally, the fact that Vahnavoi explicitly wrote it as a form of "poor acting" is exactly what pisses me off when dealing with the "acting/narrating" debate. Narrating isn't its own thing! It's just poor acting! And since roleplaying IS acting under this definition, any form of non-acting roleplaying is just some form of bad acting means it's bad roleplaying.

And frankly, thats a garbage argument.

Ok. That was more succint. Pretty much this.

Again. I've seen far far more disruption from players trying to act instead of roleplay, then the other way around. I always tell new players: Just play your character first. And yeah, it often takes quite a bit of time for new players to learn to actually roleplay (and some never do). But if you try to "help" them by having them act out stuff? They're going to think that's what makes for good roleplay, and will never actually learn what roleplaying is. They will do the dialogue and the voices and accents and surface level stuff (this time, I'm "character X" with a moustache. Ok, now I'm "character X" with a lisp. Ooooh. Now I'm a female version of "character X", how daring of me!), but there's never anything beyond that.

And the reason for this is because the "acting" done at a gaming table is always limited to physical stuff. It is the voice. It's the accent. It's the speech patterns. It's maybe some minor body motions (hand gestures, standing up, waving, whatever). It's all physical stuff. So that's literally what you are using to distinquish between this character and another. But that's not really what makes a character different. A character is not their accent, or their sex, or their speech patterns. A character is a personality, and a history, and series of choices and actions, which lead them to make new choices and actions going forward. A player foicusing on the "acting" part of playing the character, will tend to focus on the characteristics that show up in the acting. Which, again, are often very superficial things.

When you focus the player on the "actions" of the character, and not the "manerisims", you are usually going to get better roleplaying. Or at least the potential for better, because in order to do that, the player is thinking "what would <this character> do"? When acting, you are asking "how would <this character> behave"? Those are two very very different questions.