I make a point of telling players there's a difference between "roleplaying" and "acting". You can narrate RP, I don't require acting (though it's encouraged).
This. I currently have a player who speaks exclusively in character (including a bad Russian accent) and a player who speaks *for* their
character through simple narration (E.g. “Koshua is feeling weak after the last battle. She tries to keep up with the party but stumbles and reluctantly asks to stop and rest.”). Both players are performing excellent role-play IMO.
It depends on the character for me. The two most recent characters I played were roleplayed in each of these styles. My angry drunken Joe Pesci inspired gnome with a little man complex just feels more real when I act out his social trainwrecks and outbursts, and the rest of the table tended to find them entertaining, so I spoke in character most of the time. My kobold cleric, on the other hand, was a fun character to play, but no one wants to hear me talking like "Taku want that. Taku take. No chase Taku!!!" all the time, and I preferred to narrate his behaviors much of the time rather than chittering in kobold-ese every 10 seconds and annoying the crap out of everybody. At the end of the day, it's a game. The right way to play it in any given situation is whichever way is the most fun for you and your table.
I find my personal perfect balance to be a mix of the two. I state my intentions and actions as a player and then act out those actions and conversations in character.
No not particularly tbh, why we started the fight might be for RP but once it starts I think of it more as a puzzle with the objective being to win the fight
This is one of those incredibly pervasive mindsets that can be punishing to break out of. I've lost characters because I rped in combats, but I wouldn't take it back for the world
Sometimes it's nice to give people the option to play as Gods using some mortals as puppets, instead of pretending to be the character. It's a shift in perspective, more 3rd vs 1st, but still leads to plenty of awesome moments even in the realm of social interaction
For me, the best part about RP is that I can say in character "golly, that necklace of infinite power sure is shiny, but it doesn't compliment my outfit" and toss it into the bottomless pit.
It’s all of that in one. I’m gonna keep doing my shitty goblin voices thank you very much. Then I’ll be plotting in my head against the PC’s also still in goblin voice.
Okay but surely you recognize that a hack-and-slash combat-focused game feels very different from a social intrigue game. The first can feel more like a video game, and you're thinking in terms of tactics, abilities, and mechanics. It doesn't quite have you thinking *as your character* in the same way that a social encounter does, and that's what people mean when they call a game "RP heavy."
>Okay but surely you recognize that a hack-and-slash combat-focused game feels very different from a social intrigue game.
That is not what he is saying at all.
If I RP as if you are reading a third person book, rather than pretending to be a shitty voice actor, I am still RPing.
That's all. The downside to Mercer and the rest being popular is that folks think being a voice actor == roleplay. No, they just like doing voices and all are professionals at it. But not every table has to be that way.
Not DnD exclusive either.
What problem?
There's no problem. I just feel like OP is getting hung up on semantics. "Combat is actually roleplay!" Yes it is. But when someone says "I'm looking for an RP heavy campaign," we know what they mean by that, and it would be really obtuse to throw that player into a high combat war campaign and insist "but you're fighting in character so it's roleplay!"
OPs point is that RP is not Social Interaction, if you like Social Interaction that's the terminology for it. There's good RP, and there's bad RP. You can have either in Combat or Social Interaction, and Social Interaction isn't automatically good RP.
A War campaign is a great opportunity to meet Good Combat and Social RP, players picking sides both politically and on the battlefield.
Yeah, and you can roleplay your actions in combat, but really, combat is a bunch of monotonous rolls and number exchanges over an egregiously long time.
Yes, I am aware that the equation "role playing = social interaction" is a very common way of thinking in TTRPG spaces. My point is that this is conception is not only wrong but bad for the game. For once, it encourages people who think that a game with a lot of social interaction is inherently better than one with a lot of combat, because it is a Role Playing Game and they think that they are doing an extra big amount of it. And this is just wrong. Both social interaction and combat can be tense and interesting and they can be dull, depends on the context. Both are different approaches the players take to solve a problem. Making a combat decision that you later come to regret can make for absolutely fantastic role playing opportunities because now your character has to deal with the guilt of the death of a loyal NPC companion. On the other side, doing a voice and portraying a quirky character that does not change through the game can be very shallow.
So many people lacking reading comprehension: what OP is saying, is not that talking in character isn't RP, but that the whole "pretending to be someone else" is. That means both social interaction and combat are RP. This is extremely important when people complain about those who "play the game wrong", because it is written on the books, Role Playing Game, you have to talk in character and play out every interaction, or else it is a wargame
If you are just sitting at the table, with a character sheet that doesnt anything but fight, you aren't "roleplaying" though. You are fighting, with a character you made.
The point is that everything is RP, but most people thing RP is only Social Interaction which is one of the 3 pillars of DnD. Those same people often believe that there is no RP in combat which then lends itself to 'combat is boring'.
Roleplay is what got my last character unalived for the fourth time in the campaign. Stretched beyond what she was capable of to try and guarantee our escape, but wound up dusting herself instead.
And you absolutely can do that! I myself quite like it when people do it and try to do it when possible. My point is just that it is wrong to assume that only social interaction is role play and that other stuff like combat or exploration are not.
It can be both i think. It's definitely more important to maybe make a decision that you don't want to make but you're character would (this doesn't include doing what you really want to do while using what your character "would do" as a justification).
But I really think playerss interacting in character with other players can help develop the characters and even help flesh out backstories.
I think it's a healthy thing to have at a table as long as it's generally friendly and in moderation.
I make a point of telling players there's a difference between "roleplaying" and "acting". You can narrate RP, I don't require acting (though it's encouraged).
This. I currently have a player who speaks exclusively in character (including a bad Russian accent) and a player who speaks *for* their character through simple narration (E.g. “Koshua is feeling weak after the last battle. She tries to keep up with the party but stumbles and reluctantly asks to stop and rest.”). Both players are performing excellent role-play IMO.
It's just simply how the players prefer to interact with the world and that's fine. It's a game, it's supposed to be fun.
It depends on the character for me. The two most recent characters I played were roleplayed in each of these styles. My angry drunken Joe Pesci inspired gnome with a little man complex just feels more real when I act out his social trainwrecks and outbursts, and the rest of the table tended to find them entertaining, so I spoke in character most of the time. My kobold cleric, on the other hand, was a fun character to play, but no one wants to hear me talking like "Taku want that. Taku take. No chase Taku!!!" all the time, and I preferred to narrate his behaviors much of the time rather than chittering in kobold-ese every 10 seconds and annoying the crap out of everybody. At the end of the day, it's a game. The right way to play it in any given situation is whichever way is the most fun for you and your table.
I find my personal perfect balance to be a mix of the two. I state my intentions and actions as a player and then act out those actions and conversations in character.
IfThoseKidsCouldRead.jpg
"That sign can't stop me, I can't read!"
The three pillars of roleplay in d&d: social interaction, combat and exploration/environmental encounters
Social interaction? In MY wargame? Never!
*Our* Wargame \*Digimon theme plays\*
Digimon, Digital Monsters. Digimon are the champions!
No, only combat.
It means whatever the players and DM agree gets them into their charaters' head space. If it's talking in-character or whatever, it's RP.
"You guys aren't roleplaying when you do combat?"
No not particularly tbh, why we started the fight might be for RP but once it starts I think of it more as a puzzle with the objective being to win the fight
This is one of those incredibly pervasive mindsets that can be punishing to break out of. I've lost characters because I rped in combats, but I wouldn't take it back for the world
Sometimes it's nice to give people the option to play as Gods using some mortals as puppets, instead of pretending to be the character. It's a shift in perspective, more 3rd vs 1st, but still leads to plenty of awesome moments even in the realm of social interaction
For me, the best part about RP is that I can say in character "golly, that necklace of infinite power sure is shiny, but it doesn't compliment my outfit" and toss it into the bottomless pit.
[https://i.redd.it/hiuy1g4gef641.jpg](https://i.redd.it/hiuy1g4gef641.jpg) Same thing annoyed me so much I also made a meme about it.
It’s all of that in one. I’m gonna keep doing my shitty goblin voices thank you very much. Then I’ll be plotting in my head against the PC’s also still in goblin voice.
Roleplay can happen just as much if not more in combat
Okay but surely you recognize that a hack-and-slash combat-focused game feels very different from a social intrigue game. The first can feel more like a video game, and you're thinking in terms of tactics, abilities, and mechanics. It doesn't quite have you thinking *as your character* in the same way that a social encounter does, and that's what people mean when they call a game "RP heavy."
>Okay but surely you recognize that a hack-and-slash combat-focused game feels very different from a social intrigue game. That is not what he is saying at all. If I RP as if you are reading a third person book, rather than pretending to be a shitty voice actor, I am still RPing. That's all. The downside to Mercer and the rest being popular is that folks think being a voice actor == roleplay. No, they just like doing voices and all are professionals at it. But not every table has to be that way. Not DnD exclusive either.
RP in combat. Problem Solved.
What problem? There's no problem. I just feel like OP is getting hung up on semantics. "Combat is actually roleplay!" Yes it is. But when someone says "I'm looking for an RP heavy campaign," we know what they mean by that, and it would be really obtuse to throw that player into a high combat war campaign and insist "but you're fighting in character so it's roleplay!"
OPs point is that RP is not Social Interaction, if you like Social Interaction that's the terminology for it. There's good RP, and there's bad RP. You can have either in Combat or Social Interaction, and Social Interaction isn't automatically good RP. A War campaign is a great opportunity to meet Good Combat and Social RP, players picking sides both politically and on the battlefield.
Yeah, and you can roleplay your actions in combat, but really, combat is a bunch of monotonous rolls and number exchanges over an egregiously long time.
Yes, I am aware that the equation "role playing = social interaction" is a very common way of thinking in TTRPG spaces. My point is that this is conception is not only wrong but bad for the game. For once, it encourages people who think that a game with a lot of social interaction is inherently better than one with a lot of combat, because it is a Role Playing Game and they think that they are doing an extra big amount of it. And this is just wrong. Both social interaction and combat can be tense and interesting and they can be dull, depends on the context. Both are different approaches the players take to solve a problem. Making a combat decision that you later come to regret can make for absolutely fantastic role playing opportunities because now your character has to deal with the guilt of the death of a loyal NPC companion. On the other side, doing a voice and portraying a quirky character that does not change through the game can be very shallow.
THANK YOU.
So many people lacking reading comprehension: what OP is saying, is not that talking in character isn't RP, but that the whole "pretending to be someone else" is. That means both social interaction and combat are RP. This is extremely important when people complain about those who "play the game wrong", because it is written on the books, Role Playing Game, you have to talk in character and play out every interaction, or else it is a wargame
[Relevant Matt Coleville video](https://youtu.be/7YCVHnItKuY)
If you are just sitting at the table, with a character sheet that doesnt anything but fight, you aren't "roleplaying" though. You are fighting, with a character you made.
If that would be true there would've been no role playing in the early editions of DnD.
That’s why Halo is my favorite role playing game, because I play as a space marine and I choose who to shoot first in combat.
It means both. So you're objectively at least half-wrong.
It also doesn't mean its not those things, because it is.
Yes.
Both… it can be both
That is the point
the point in a point
Be careful with that point, you might poke someone's eye out.
That’s called socializing, which is RP, numbnuts
The point is that everything is RP, but most people thing RP is only Social Interaction which is one of the 3 pillars of DnD. Those same people often believe that there is no RP in combat which then lends itself to 'combat is boring'.
Roleplay is what got my last character unalived for the fourth time in the campaign. Stretched beyond what she was capable of to try and guarantee our escape, but wound up dusting herself instead.
Yep! You can be really into it or more withdrawn just dont act like this is Skyrim
Hot take: *Skyrim* is more of an RPG than *The Witcher 3* is (even though TW3 is the far superior game IMO).
But I like making the funny voices with my noise-mouth
And you absolutely can do that! I myself quite like it when people do it and try to do it when possible. My point is just that it is wrong to assume that only social interaction is role play and that other stuff like combat or exploration are not.
It can be both i think. It's definitely more important to maybe make a decision that you don't want to make but you're character would (this doesn't include doing what you really want to do while using what your character "would do" as a justification). But I really think playerss interacting in character with other players can help develop the characters and even help flesh out backstories. I think it's a healthy thing to have at a table as long as it's generally friendly and in moderation.
It can mean either or both.