Article I wrote about 2 yers ago (Feb 05) that I always repost when the forums are wiped. Remember what Role-playing is...or else
------------------------------------------------------------------
I often get the feeling that the term “role-playing” has become widely misunderstood. This is probably mostly due to the PnP and computer role-playing games which have, to varying degree, included rules to the act or role-playing. I think that for many “role-playing” has become ‘existing’ as their character within those rules, acting out their characters through actions within the rule set.
But to me role-playing is far more a mental process than a (imagined) physical one. To its core role-playing is about trying to ‘become’ your character, trying to think and feel like your character. How does your character view the situations she is confronted with? What thought processes go through her mind? What does she feel on an emotional level? Of course this is the role-playing ‘ideal’ to strife for. I don’t think many actually truly become their character (their sense of ‘self’ is too strong, thankfully
).Now, I can hear you say “so you’re saying that every game where you take on another character is a role-playing game”. To a certain extent that’s true, but only because role-playing is a mental process. You don’t need a game to role-play, and as such you can ‘role-play’ in every game. Rules don’t directly take away from your ability to role-play.
But that doesn’t make every game a role-playing game as I see it. Role-playing games are games that facilitate the process of role-playing. The easier they make it to suspend disbelief and get into character, the better they are suited for role-playing. What level of support a game needs to make it a role-playing game is highly personal. For me a game like Diablo isn’t a role-playing game as I find it very hard to get into character with everyone just running around killing mindlessly. But I find enough suspension of disbelief in most single player NWN modules to act out my character. I just pick, for example, the responses closest to what my character would say and imagine that she did. But for others, the level of role-playing isn’t enough until there are other life players present to give feedback on their role-played actions.
Yet others again have to come face-to-face with people as a computer game always limits the amount of human interaction; sounds, facial expressions, gestures, intonations, etc. Getting feedback like that makes it easier to believe your own actions and by extension believe your character more, enhancing the role-playing experience.
One note on character progression: I very often see it mentioned as an integral part of role-playing. There is no doubt that it is very important, but I also think it is only a natural consequence of role-playing a character and not role-playing itself. It is not inconceivable to role-play a deep and interesting character that goes through no personal growth whatsoever (for example, I think the main character from the movie “Memento” might be a good candidate). Of course I think this will get tiresome quickly, but there are many people who feel that way about role-playing a goody drow priestess.
To me role-playing is no more and no less than that. You take on a part, a personality, other than your own and act that out within whatever confines the character is placed within. It doesn’t state anything about realism, doesn’t state anything about others being there to observe and respond to your acting. It just describes the mental process of imagining you to be someone else.
The difficulty comes when you contrast the term role-playing to role-playing game. A role-playing game still has this acting as someone else very much at its core, but it adds the “game” element in the form of statistics and rules. As such D&D certainly is a role-playing game as its focus is on assuming a fictional role, providing game rules to do this within.
My ‘ideal’ form of a role-playing game though is much closer to a storytelling game. There it seems to me the role-playing doesn’t exist as an optional part to the game rules, but more that the rules exist to facilitate the role-playing. In a way I see the process of writing a story (which is more often than not done solo) as a form of role-playing. As a writer you try to get in the minds of the characters you write about. In this you create your own ‘rules’, your own way in which the universe works.
Does this mean a single-player module can be role-played within? I believe most certainly yes, it can. I can very well write the story of my character as she interacts with the world as presented by the module. It having a lot of story has little to do with it (otherwise watching a movie would be role-playing) and neither does realism. A wide array of choices certainly facilitates role-playing, but is not at the core of it. A role-playing module can certainly be very linear, that just limits the characters that can be role-played within it (often seen as alignment restrictions, class restrictions, etc).
What it sounds like people are saying (those who say that there is such a thing as a SP role-playing module) is that role-playing equals choices. More choices which create different outcomes equal better role-playing. This is an interesting idea, and one I can relate to at a certain level. But I would call that sort of module a multi-layered story with multiple outcomes, and would no longer label making dialog decisions “role-playing” per se. If you make a choice, you’re still forced down the path of the choice you made. It’s an illusion. I’d hate to think that one path equals railroading, but two or more paths suddenly equal “role playing.” I can see why people think that, as I’ve thought of it that way myself in an attempt to define how the concept of role-playing applies to NWN (in my more liberal moments).
I’m surprised to hear a few people say that having a good story leads to better role-playing. Is it role-playing to read a good book, or watch an interesting movie? If the book is really compelling, and you can identify with the protagonist, I can see getting into the main character, but that’s still not role-playing. At best, it’s empathy, or perhaps a bit of identity projection.
My definition of role-playing is thus; it’s taking on the character of someone other than you, and acting and. There is no way I can feel like I’m interjecting my own role when I’m reading someone else’s predefined responses, no matter how well they might be written. To me, the only time I’m role-playing is when I’m the one writing the dialog for my own NPC’s. That’s when I’m truly reacting to the PC and the world around me, and trying to get into character. After the dialog’s written, the opportunity to role-play is over. I think that if you really want to role-play in NWN, you should build a module.
I think the real difference here that should be pointed out is that in any given module, you are playing a role. The difference that I’m talking about is that when I role-play, I’m living the character’s life, not having it completely defined for me, whether there are several definitions created or not. I guess the real problem here is that I don’t see role-playing (as it applies to NWN) as a matter of degrees. I don’t see one module being a better role-playing mod than another. I see them having a better or worse story, for sure, but stories and role-playing aren’t the same thing to me.
I don’t need an audience to feel like I’m role-playing. I can role-play all by myself (ooooh, that might be too much information…;)) I will say that it’s easier, more dynamic, and more fun if there are people to interact with, but that’s not what makes it role-playing or not. What makes it role-playing is being able to do things in character that are recognizable by the environment (in this case, the module) and accounted for. I don’t think this is possible without fellow players and/or a DM. There is a small amount of that in any given module, but such a tiny amount is hardly qualifies it as a “role-playing” environment.
This reminds me of something I was discussing with some friends the other day. We were chatting about what distinguishes a role playing game from a regular game like, say, Chess. What we came up with is that in a regular game there are rules that players strictly follow. Also there is a set goal that the object of the game is for the players to reach and then the game ends. Whereas in a role playing game players gladly and frequently bend and break the rules if it suits the story. And while there's usually some goal in a particular module, such as slay the evil wizard; what's really important is the experience of getting to that point. And when that goal is reached, it is just a signal to start playing the next module.
I think "role-playing" is just imagining a character, and deciding how that character would act in a given situation. The character doesn't necessarily have to be fictional, and it doesn't necessarily have to be somebody other than you. Role-playing can be interesting and fun because of the character, because of the situation, or both. Usually for me, the situation is where the appeal is.
I would distinguish role-playing from "acting". Some people "act" when they role-play, but in my experience most don't. I've played RPG's for many years, and virtually all the time the players talk using their normal speech and explain what their character will do. (In other words, you would say, "I attack the orc", as opposed to "Tremble, as I draw steel, villain!") In fact, the few times that I've played with groups that use the acting style, I've found it very uncomfortable.
That said, making decisions for your character is enough to satisfy my definition of role-playing. Having multiple players is not required. Having more people changes the situation, and perhaps causes you to make different "choices" for your character, but it is not the source of role-play.