A birthday present for Yours Truly...
Dear JB:
How much roleplay is there in your games?
Seriously, everytime people here [at Reddit] discuss character choices theres usually a big thread of coments about "oh, that's a great option to roleplay your concerns/fears/doubts/powers into the game". In theory it does indeed sound great but most games I've been a part of are very gygaxian. So any roleplay scenes we do have is usually very short and "oh no, this is terrible" doesn't really go beyond the flavor of the scene for me. So really, how much do you folk actually go into character on your games?
How Much Roleplay
Dear HMR:
I've been playing RPGs for more than 40 years. Started around 1982 (age 9); today, I am 52 years old. Over the decades I've played with more than 100 different individuals (that's a rough count, but I can get to at least that number of people off the top of my head)...from elementary and middle school, through high school and university, a handful of times (briefly) after graduation, and then quite a bit since 2005 or thereabouts, including participation in 4 or 5 gaming conventions.
I've played a variety of RPGs over the years..not just editions of D&D, but all sorts of Palladium games (Heroes Unlimited, TMNT, Rifts), Chaosium games (Stormbringer, ElfQuest), White Wolf games (Ars Magica, Vampire, Mage, etc.), Atlas games (Ars again, Over The Edge), indie games (Risus, FATE, InSpectres, Fiasco, etc.), and, of course, TSR games (MSH, Gamma World, Boot Hill, Top Secret, Star Frontiers). Throw in some Traveller as well (Classic and Mongoose only). Lots and lots of games...ROLEPLAYING games.
By definition, an RPG is a game in which players play a role in the game. You are not a meeple moving around a board; instead you play some sort of character. A soldier. A magician. A scientist. A vampire. A mutant animal. Whatever. How much role-playing have I seen in my role-playing games? I've seen nothing BUT roleplaying in my roleplaying games.
But you're talking about something else.
You're not talking about playing a role. You're talking about role-playing, in terms of the psychiatrist definition, specifically:
"to act out or perform the part of a person or character, for example as a technique in training or psychotherapy"
[that's from Google dictionary]
I've never been to psychotherapy, but I've done more than a few "role-playing exercises" over the years, usually as part of on-the-job training dealing with a customer service component facing our external customers (man, it's been a long-time since I held a real job...I forget all the "corporate speak" I used to know). Usually, this was all done in aid of developing tactics for, um, "crisis mitigation" or "de-escalating conflict" and, uh, "active listening"...or something. Jeez, I don't remember all this jargon. It was...fine. It's stuff I can do in my sleep, partly because I'm a trained actor and partly because I'm not braindead and I have enough empathy that I can shift my perspective to someone else's shoes. MOST people can do this...so long as they don't have crushing anxiety about "playing pretend" in front of other people. Then again, part of these trainings involved "cultivating a safe environment" in which to do these exercises.
[man, I do NOT miss the office life]
This, however, is not what occurs when I sit down to play an RPG. With a couple-three exceptions, I have ALMOST NEVER SEEN PEOPLE "PERFORMING" IN THIS WAY AT MY TABLE.
The caps are for emphasis, not "yelling," but perhaps I do want to yell a bit. First, though, I'll talk about the exceptions:
AS A PLAYER:
I've had the chance to play FATE a couple times at conventions. Once was a 1930s period piece (Spirit of the Century), the other was a Dresden Files session. As a game, FATE provides systems that interact with the "portrayal" of character traits on one's character sheet...in other words, act a certain way and get a bonus, fail to act and take a penalty. It's all good fun and allows a washed-up, ex-performer like myself to 'ham it up' and reap fat mechanical benefits from doing so. That's part of the game.
ALSO, there have been times where I was required to play (again in a tournament setting) a pre-generated "character" that had a literal personality/background to it. This did not require me to play "in character" (i.e. it did not require me to perform or use a silly accent) but it DID require me to "think" or "take action" based on the CHARACTER's motivations, rather than my own. I am thinking specifically of one convention game in which this occurred (a game of Mongoose Traveller)...but, now that I consider, playing Steve Jackson's Paranoia also requires this kind of "brain-shift." Hmm. So does Steve Jackson's Toon.
[as an aside, I tend to dislike Steve Jackson games...Car Wars, as a non-RPG, is an exception...and I especially DETEST Toon. It is really, really crappy]
[
***EDIT: both Toon and Paranoia were written by Greg Costikyan, NOT Steve Jackson...although Toon was published by Steve Jackson Games. Costikyan also did WEG's Star Wars and the game Violence, both of which I own, neither of which I play, but (as with his other works) still make for entertaining reading. Thanks to Faoladh for pointing out my mistake!***]
AS A DM/GM:
When acting as the Game Master it is my job to play the part of all the non-player characters, nearly all of which are "not me" and are supposed to have their own motivations, many of which are specific to their "character" and vastly different from my own. In this way, I am "roleplaying" CONSTANTLY as a DM/GM, as I must get out of myself and into the head of the NPC/monster in order to determine what is the thing's appropriate actions/behavior. Sometimes, it is appropriate for an NPC to surrender rather than fight to the death. Sometimes it is appropriate to treat the players' character with deference...or scorn. It just depends.
Now, does this mean I am using odd accents or funny voices? Generally, no. If I "speak" for a character, it is generally because I've got a bunch of information to impart that's not easy to sum up, and it's EASIER for me to simply converse with the players "in character," rather than saying "He tells you this" (and then the players say something) "Well, then he tells you THIS" (and then the players ask some questions) "Then the guys answers this other thing" (etc.). Sometimes it is FASTER and more EXPEDITIOUS to respond as the person being interrogated/questioned.
And the "funny voices?" That happens for one of three reasons: A) to distinguish ME (the DM/GM) talking versus THE CHARACTER, B) to distinguish one NPC from another NPC, or C) because I'm tired/silly/bored and lapse into something. However, "C" is a much rarer occurrence.
Here's a typical example of "A:" when the neonate vampire PCs are dragged into the room of Axle, the Prince of Seattle, I'll use a "voice" for the Prince (when he's speaking) while I use my "normal voice" to describe what else is happening around the players that their characters can see, hear, etc.
Here's a typical example of "B:" in my home campaign, when players pick up a retainer or NPC party member, I will (RARELY!) give this character a "voice" of its own...usually because the players had reason to interact with the individual. THEN, if I am describing a situation in which the party is conversing with a DIFFERENT NPC (who needs a voice to distinguish themselves from my "normal voice" DM descriptives), that character might get its own distinct voice to create separation for my players' ears. Still, this is something I ALMOST NEVER do, largely because I don't tend to create scenes where I'm talking to myself. That's...ridiculous.
[by the way, it IS helpful to have different voices in your "repertoire" if you (like me) enjoy READING BOOKS TO YOUR KIDS. It's helpful to the listener to be able to distinguish when one character is talking from another. I did this for years (duh). Of course, I was also on the speech team in middle school where this kind of practice is quite necessary. However, playing RPGs is NOT the same thing as "reading to people." At least, it shouldn't be...]
But these "voices" are a tool in the DM's toolkit, used for a specific purpose (or, as said, because it's late at night and I'm loopy from booze and just acting silly)...not because the act of play is performative. Even as a DM my responsibility is to RUN THE GAME; that's the only duty I need to perform. Being a dancing monkey for the players' entertainment? No. If they are 'entertained,' that is a tertiary benefit, at best.
So, then, HMR: to your question.
You talk about wanting to "go into character." You say you've read discussions of "character choices" that provide opportunities to "roleplay your concerns/fears/doubts/powers into the game." You seem to lament that most of your games have been "very gygaxian," whatever that means (I infer you mean it to be the opposite of what you presume an RPG is supposed to do). You SEEM to be talking about scenes in which PLAYERS are performing the act or portraying characters.
Look, pal: I don't run acting seminars. This isn't scene work. We are not working our script, rehearsing for some performance, or improvising high drama. NOT. AT. ALL.
We are playing a game. And that game does NOT have, as its objective, PUTTING ON A SHOW.
If you think that's what playing an RPG means, then sorry, you're wrong. Yes. You are wrong. You are playing the game WRONG.
BUT...here's what DOES happen, when you play the game RIGHT:
Played correctly, your players should become fully immersed in the action at the table, so engaged with the game play that they lose track of space/time outside of the game. What's more, the MORE they are 'pushed' through the game play, the more they will identify (strongly!) with the character they are playing. They WILL speak as their character. They will act (i.e. BEHAVE) as their character, in game. Not because they are trying to portray "a character." No! Because the character IS the player. And the character subsumes more and more of the player's identity.
It is not that players portray characters. It's that characters REPRESENT PLAYERS. We are not "acting as" characters; instead, the character is the vehicle which allows US to "act," i.e. take action in the game world.
And what does that look like? It can look like the PLAYER being angry or scared or upset or triumphant or doubtful or righteous...actual, honest-to-goodness emotions. Because the players are so invested in game play that they (momentarily) forget they are playing a game. A game that does NOT have "life-or-death" stakes...just a game! But they won't treat it like a game...instead, they will treat it with deadly seriousness. "We're all going to die!" is the kind of delightful exclamation that every DM wants to hear at their table because it means they are doing their job correctly.
The GM/DM's job is to run a tight game that keeps the players firmly glued (as best as possible) to what's going on. No, that doesn't mean you are putting on a show; heck, it doesn't even mean that you are constantly barraging them with life-threatening perils ("you're jumped by 15 assassins...again!"). No, you keep their attention by keeping them interested and engaged with the game being played...for example, if they hear a rumor of an adventure site, certainly loaded with treasure, while resting in town, let THEM (the players) decide how best to approach the situation. How to get there? What are the logistical difficulties? Do we have the resources to pursue the quest? Is it worth our time, effort, and risk? Let the PLAYERs debate this (while YOU just interject little tidbits to keep their fire stoked), and soon-enough-they'll be worked into a froth just trying to figure out how many wagons to outfit for the excursion.
RPGs are a way of "playing pretend" but they are not ABOUT the "pretending." The pretending is not an object in and of itself. This is not ComicCon...we are not "cos-playing." Cosplay, like LARP, is a different animal from an RPG. RPGs are still games to be played...even if modern RPG gamers seem to have forgotten this fact.
Yeah, it's a nerdy hobby. So is wargaming and stamp collecting. Doesn't mean it's not enjoyable.
So, yeah: all my RPGs see a ton of roleplaying, but not very much "role-playing" at all. Even so, the players STILL get to feel genuine emotions (as opposed to portraying "fake emotions") and that, HMR, is one of the great joys of this type of game play. Embrace it.
Sincerely,
JB