This is sort of a self-reflective, what I think I’ve learned in the past couple of years, here are my opinions on how to roleplay kind of post. I don’t mean this to be a list of rules for anyone to follow, nor to I consider it to be exhaustive; but merely a set of observations submitted to you all for criticism.

1. System does matter – this one’s pretty basic now, but when I first discovered it my whole attitude changed.

2. There is no one way or style to roleplay – I always thought that if I could find that one perfect system, or discover the perfect players with the perfect skills that I could somehow achieve a great roleplaying experience. This of course is wrong. You have to learn what you and your fellow players want and try to play to that style.

3. Immersion does not necessarily equal roleplaying – I mean immersion in the Turku style. This of course is only one style of roleplaying. There are others.

4. Roleplaying is not acting, but rather guiding a character – So many people compare roleplaying to improvisational acting. This analogy only works so far before you have to abandon it. I think that the acting analogy coincides in a lot of ways with the misconception that immersion is the best way to roleplay, but if other stances are allowed—stances in which the player distances himself from the character in certain ways—then roleplaying ceases to be acting.

5. Open discussion mid-game is alright – Again with the immersion. If you break the illusion in order to discuss where the game is going or what you want to accomplish then the traditional rule for me has always been: keep it absolutely as short as possible. I don’t think this has to be so. I don’t always know what I want my character to do next, and sometimes talking things out with others is helpful. I've had a long and hard time trying to convince myself of this one, but in the end I think that it's right.

6. The game does not belong to the GM – A lot of this is a semantics argument, but I also believe there’s some truth in the statement. So often we say that the game is “Scott’s game” or “Lee’s game” just because he’s the GM, but it isn’t right. The game belongs to everyone involved. In fact the GM is just another player, albeit with special powers. No matter how much preparation the GM does, he never gets ownership of the game.

7. All players (of which the GM is one) should always have a say in where the game is heading – Again, the GM does not own the game, and therefore should not have absolute control of where the story is heading. Just like mid-game discussion is acceptable, so should players be allowed to discuss where they would like to see the game heading. And this doesn’t apply just to “crazy indie games” where certain GM powers are distributed either, but to all games.

I know what I’m saying here isn’t original, but sometimes it does me good to list things out like this. I hope someone else finds this helpful.

Does anyone have any additions, and or complaints to what I have written above? Am I generally on target? What misconceptions have others seen crumble since joining the Forge?

Tim 'fleetingGlow' C. K. wrote: 4. Roleplaying is not acting, but rather guiding a character ? So many people compare roleplaying to improvisational acting. This analogy only works so far before you have to abandon it. I think that the acting analogy coincides in a lot of ways with the misconception that immersion is the best way to roleplay, but if other stances are allowed?stances in which the player distances himself from the character in certain ways?then roleplaying ceases to be acting.

Hey,

I knew this would crop up, the "acting" thing. I'm surprised Fang hasn't jumped in with fists flying ...

Guys, it's best just to drop real-world acting, the profession, as a reference point. I think that Tim's made it clear what he's talking about, which is what people often think of as acting, also what some folks refer to as "immersion" (although others use the term in other ways), which entails "submerging" oneself and looks more like auto-hypnosis than anything else.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: I'm surprised Fang hasn't jumped in with fists flying....

As has already been stated, I’m simply trying to abandon the common misconception that roleplaying is like acting—or even is acting. And specifically, I’m talking about immersion. Basically, what I’ve seen in the past is people using the comparison to the point where players tend to confuse the techniques employed in one with the other. I think the analogy works insofar as introducing new players to the hobby of roleplaying—as a basis for further development—but really it shouldn’t be taken any further. Roelplaying is roleplaying and acting is acting. Any similarities are neato, but still immutably different.

I was actually more interested in the second part of my above statement: “Roleplaying is not acting, but rather guiding a character.” I’ve struggled a lot trying to define roleplaying, and I also know that the subject has been discussed ad nausea here on the boards. What I can’t escape thinking about though, is that no matter how you cut it—and especially when players switch between different stances—roleplaying involves leading one or more characters through a series of scenes. Of course this still doesn’t distinguish between roleplaying games and so-called “story telling games,” but I’ve become increasingly convinced that that issue has to do more with mechanics and character control sanctity with the original player. My point is however, that no matter what level of mechanical influence a game has on the in-game events, a player always at least guides a character. This of course can be a very hands-off brand of control, or something as involved as immersion techniques.

Quick note:

I've been digging into acting stuff lately, and the only two major useful things I see that can be crossed over are:

•Theatre/acting games focus on communication/interaction between the players, often non-verbal. Anything that increases communication amongst the players of rpgs isn't a bad thing, although the type and method is going to differ greatly.

•The ability to improv is based highly off the ability to accept new situations/ideas on the fly. There's a lot of trust involved in this, and its really the same kind of thing that needs to happen with good scene framing.

Both of these, though, are really tied into the mid-game communication/breaking immersion stuff that has already been mentioned.

Chris