GM Tips: What Roleplaying Is

Which of the following examples is roleplaying? A. The characters battling in a savage combat with a group of orcs in a dungeon. B. The characters negotiating with the duke to get him to commit his forces to the war against the goblin horde. C. The characters engaging in small talk with each other in the tavern. D. Both B and C, but not A. If you guessed it was a trick question, you're right. There's not enough information to determine an answer. All of these examples could be roleplaying, or they might not be. Let's talk about why. Roleplaying is self-evidently about playing a role. Easy enough. Here's a definition of a roleplaying game from Wikipedia : "A role-playing game is a game in which the participants assume the roles of characters and collaboratively create stories. Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterisation, and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, they may improvise freely; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the games." The key part of that is "determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization." Thus, if you make a decision your character might also make given the circumstances in the game, you are roleplaying. Back to our original multiple-choice question, we would have to ask whether any of those situations or actions are in keeping with a decision the character would also make in its particular context. Would Ragnar strike back at the orcs attacking him? If the answer to that is "Yes," and the player does exactly that, then said player is roleplaying . Whoa... combat is roleplaying? Yes, it is if that's also what your character might do in such a situation. Same goes for B and C. "But Headhunter Jones, what about all those posts I see from GMs that say 'my game is more about 'roleplaying' than combat?" Well, that's a GM who is trying to communicate a particular style but is using the wrong words. What he or she is likely trying to say is that they expect a great deal more in-character interaction in the form of talking or dramatic acting and making decisions that do not involve violence as a means of conflict resolution . It may also indicate a GM that is greatly interested in more control of the game than you're used to, especially if such a declaration is accompanied by memes like "roleplaying vs. roll-playing." Here, the GM is telling you that it's not the dice and game mechanics that will determine your success, but rather his estimation of your ability to communicate your playing of a particular role. (Sometimes some meaningless dice rolls are thrown in for effect.) Less randomization via dice rolls - such as one might find in a combat - means more control for the GM. You may end up playing the GM (getting past his blocks to achieve your goals by playing to his biases) instead of actually playing the game that is listed . So be sure to ask when you see such advertisements to make sure you're on the same page with the GM before playing. Lots of people enjoy this style of play; others would rather the game mechanics legitimately determine success or failure as mentioned in the Wikipedia excerpt above. So, now you know what roleplaying is. It's isn't just "talking" or "descriptive flourish." It's just about making choices your character would also make given the in-game context. And that can definitely include choices made in a combat situation. If you are a player that loves combat and you're being told you're not roleplaying, laugh at that assertion and point your GM to this post. If you are a GM, please do your homework on what roleplaying is and communicate clearly how you intend to facilitate game play. This isn't just semantics - these are core concepts that help you think about and define your game and recruit players that are interested in your particular style. This makes for much smoother game experience.

Amazing points, especially the explanation of "roleplay vs roll-play" . I'd like to add on a little excerpt from one of the first ever PnP books that I got, that really helped me, when I first started out roleplaying and DM/GMing. "Like improvisational theater, you, your fellow players and the Game Master, are all building an adventure, a story. The GM may have been the one to concoct the basic story, villains and plot twists, but even he doesn't know exactly how it will all turn out, because the players are the key components to the story. Their characters' choices and actions will change everything and carry the story along. When the game is over you'll have complete chapter of a larger story forever locked into your memory. A story that you helped create and your character was one of the main heroes. In a role-playing game there are no simple answers. There are also no limits to what you can do. The only restrictions are that you cannot go beyond the physical, mental, and emotional limits of your character or the parameters of the setting. And your character's words and deeds may have repercussions (make a friend, make a enemy, causes a situation to spiral to violence, innocent people are hurt and the character is chased out of town, or his quick thinking saves the day and the townspeople throw a party for him or give him a reward, and on and on.) Use common sense and your imagination and have fun." - Palladium: Rifts Ultimate Edition

Thanks for the kind words and for sharing that snippet. I especially like the reference to improvisational theater which is all RPGs are really - improvisational acting in a framework of mechanics for conflict resolution. The basis for improvisational acting is "Yes, and..." in which you accept the ideas of your fellow players and where in-game conflict occurs, you follow the rules of the game you're playing to resolve it. (Where the mantra is "No" or the rules aren't followed due to GM fiat is when it can get all wobbly. But that's fodder for another thread...) In that process, if you're making choices your character would also make given the in-game context, you're roleplaying!

On the topic of roleplaying; Being in-character. This is just a friendly notice to players, from a DM. Please stop not talking in character when interacting with NPCs and such. I do not want to hear "My character asks where the cave is.", because why would you say that? Why not just say "Where is the cave?", directed at the NPC? You're playing a character, who is talking to an NPC; Talk to him, not to me, the DM. No one mandates you use a fancy voice or personality or anything, but if that's what it's going to take to get you into the character, then you should try it. Because at it's core, that's the point. Some tangential things: What your character knows. Ok, so you're in a combat, and the GM has chosen his method of mapping. Sometimes he uses a map with no fog of war, sometimes his maps have the unfortunate property of GM-markings like a big S for a secret door or something. You know what the absolute worst thing in the world is? When you use what you can see as a player, to govern what your character does. If you can see an enemy behind a wall, but that wall blocks your character from seeing it, your job is very simply, to act like you don't know they're there. Because that's what "character knowledge" is. If you make decisions based on things you know as a player, you're basically cheating. It's unenforcable, and thus a really dick thing to do, but it's still the closest thing to cheating that PnP games can get. Stop doing it. Forever. Similarly, when the DM asks one person, in a room your character is not in, to make a Perception check, that is not a queue for you to say "My character walks over and makes a Perception check too.", or to see that he failed and roll in place of him. Same as the knowledge thing, that's not how games work and doing so is not cool. If your DM doesn't enforce these things, that shouldn't give you free reign to assume they're fine and you can do that. Be a decent player. Stop meta-gaming. No one likes it.

I'll admit that meta-gaming is very easy to do, and sometimes hard to resist. However, I've dealt with this in my own games by asking PCs "Why" players that can't answer it can't make rolls, so when one person makes a Perception roll and another ask if he can roll Perception I ask him "why?" some people come with valid reasons, some are clever and creative reasons, and then some don't have a good reason; that last one....don't get to roll.

Thanks for the replies. Of the things I'd like to note here is that there are definitions and there are preferences. I have provided the definition of roleplaying in the first thread. You have stated some preferences. I'm going to use this opportunity to define them in the spirit of the original post. Many of these definitions will be based on work done at The Forge some years ago. I'm not up for debating the works there; I'm simply going to use their definitions to break down these things into digestible bites to separate concepts that can help GMs frame their goals and intent for their players. Being able to clearly communicate expectations helps make for smoother running games with less player turnover. Askren said: On the topic of roleplaying; Being in-character. This is just a friendly notice to players, from a DM. Please stop not talking in character when interacting with NPCs and such. I do not want to hear "My character asks where the cave is.", because why would you say that? Why not just say "Where is the cave?", directed at the NPC? You're playing a character, who is talking to an NPC; Talk to him, not to me, the DM. No one mandates you use a fancy voice or personality or anything, but if that's what it's going to take to get you into the character, then you should try it. Because at it's core, that's the point. You have correctly defined what it means to be in-character: A style of narration using first-person point of view to describe character dialogue or actions. You have also correctly defined what it means to be out-of-character: A style of narration describing character actions or dialogue in the third person. Both of these are known as ephemera which are just moment-to-moment or sentence-to-sentence actions and statements during play. Is acting out-of-character roleplaying? Yes, it can be. If you have chosen to make a decision that your character would also likely make given the in-game context, you are roleplaying regardless of whether you communicate that decision in-character or out-of-character. Your third-person examples above could be roleplaying if those are things those particular characters would also do. Whether or not you like people to communicate the playing of their role by way of in-character or out-of-character dialogue is a preference. There is no right or wrong here. I think most in their experience shift between first- and third-person narration. If you have a particular preference for your particular game, it may help to define it as I have done here for your players so they can be clear on what you want. Note again, however, that regardless, this has nothing to do with roleplaying. It's just about communicating your playing of that role. You go on to talk about metagaming as a separate issue which is good because metagaming has nothing to do with being in-character or out-of-character. Before I get into the metagame, I'd like to point out a few basic definitions: In Actor stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have. In Author stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions based on the real person's priorities, then retroactively "motivates" the character to perform them. In Director stance, a person determines aspects of the environment relative to the character in some fashion, entirely separately from the character's knowledge or ability to influence events. Therefore the player has not only determined the character's actions, but the context, timing, and spatial circumstances of those actions, or even features of the world separate from the characters. It's important to note that nobody stays in one stance all the time, even if they make a concerted effort to do so. The needs of the game can cause a player to shift stances around a bit even if they prefer one stance over another for their particular game experience. Some games can promote one stance over another. And just to be clear, stance has nothing to do with in-character or out-of-character dialogue. Some tangential things: What your character knows. Ok, so you're in a combat, and the GM has chosen his method of mapping. Sometimes he uses a map with no fog of war, sometimes his maps have the unfortunate property of GM-markings like a big S for a secret door or something. You know what the absolute worst thing in the world is? When you use what you can see as a player, to govern what your character does. If you can see an enemy behind a wall, but that wall blocks your character from seeing it, your job is very simply, to act like you don't know they're there. Because that's what "character knowledge" is. If you make decisions based on things you know as a player, you're basically cheating. It's unenforcable, and thus a really dick thing to do, but it's still the closest thing to cheating that PnP games can get. Stop doing it. Forever. Similarly, when the DM asks one person, in a room your character is not in, to make a Perception check, that is not a queue for you to say "My character walks over and makes a Perception check too.", or to see that he failed and roll in place of him. Same as the knowledge thing, that's not how games work and doing so is not cool. If your DM doesn't enforce these things, that shouldn't give you free reign to assume they're fine and you can do that. Be a decent player. Stop meta-gaming. No one likes it. You've stated some strong preferences here and I hope you are equally clear with your players on these points so you can build a group that is right for you. Of course, preferences cannot be inherently right or wrong so while I may have another preference, we can use the definitions above to break things down in a way that can be used to help GM communicate their agenda. Your examples and comments indicate you greatly prefer the Actor stance or at least you want your players to be in the Actor stance as much as possible. If everyone in the group agrees that Actor stance is the preferred method of play, then it would be seen as "cheating" to act on knowledge the character hasn't obtained in the context of the game because it violates the agreements you have made with each other. So that my own biases are laid bare, our games focus on all three stances about equally. We encourage the positive use of the metagame to make fun things happen and to move the game forward in a direction everyone likes. I don't mind the players having information such as in your examples of the secret door or monsters on the other side of a wall as long as they use that information to make the scene more interesting and fun. It's just a matter of determining by way of the Author stance an interesting justification for their character acting on that information (e.g. "I stumble backwards and accidentally open the secret door as a minor action..."). Or by way of the Director stance to cause something to happen in the game that imparts the information to the character (e.g. "There's a torch on the other side of the monster and so from my position, I can see it's shadow on the wall. I know it's there.") Since everyone in our group agrees that Author and Director stance should be used in an interesting and positive way to move the game forward, it would be seen as annoying if someone didn't act on information that could make a scene more exciting, interesting, and fun. It would violate the agreement we have made with each other. I point out your preferences and mine so as to illustrate the key takeaway from this exchange: These are preferences and not everyone shares our preferences. Issues can arise when we assume someone by default agrees to abide by that social contract because we believe our preference is inherently right. These things bear discussing with each and every player during Session Zero and shouldn't be taken for granted. We should seek their buy-in on a particular mode of play by being clear about our approach. If they agree, this becomes part of our social contract and we can all be held to that agreement. If they don't know what they're agreeing to because we assume a preference is truth, they can hardly be blamed for violating that social contract. It doesn't make them bad players. It just means they didn't know about our unspoken rules. Coming back full circle to the original post, this includes what we mean when we say we want to see more "roleplaying" in our games or less or more "metagaming."

Askren said: Similarly, when the DM asks one person, in a room your character is not in, to make a Perception check, that is not a queue for you to say "My character walks over and makes a Perception check too.", or to see that he failed and roll in place of him. Same as the knowledge thing, that's not how games work and doing so is not cool. If your DM doesn't enforce these things, that shouldn't give you free reign to assume they're fine and you can do that. I just remembered I wanted to address this specifically. It's not really part of this topic, but it annoys me as well when players do this so I'll address it. From a D&D 4e perspective (PHB pg. 178): "The DM tells you if a skill check is appropriate in a given situation or directs you to make a check if circumstances call for one." (I can't speak for other game systems but I imagine many have similar rules in place.) This means you lead with the fiction by stating an action you'd like to take in context. The DM will then ask you for a skill check. It's okay to negotiate that skill check if you had intended something else and the DM misread you; however, saying you want to make a Diplomacy check with no accompanying fiction is not prescribed by the rules of the game. The DM asks you to make checks, not the players. So lead with the fiction first. It's the rules of the game you're playing. On the same token, DMs, read a little further (PHB pg. 178): "All DCs assume acting in situations that are far from mundane; the DM should call for checks only in dramatic situations." What I see a lot of are DMs asking for way too many skill checks, trying to simulate every action that might be similar to a skill check. That's not correct either and if you don't like it when players ask to make rolls (or pig-pile Aid Another rolls to ensure success) then consider you may, in fact, be causing the problem by asking for too many rolls! If the situation is not dramatic ("charged") then there are no checks to be made. The character simply succeeds as his action within the limits of context and you move on. Not every lie is a Bluff check, not every climb is an Athletics check. Given time and resources and no external pressure, they just succeed. While you're at it DMs, use the proper DCs. Don't just eyeball it or gut check it. The rules are there for a reason. They're part of the challenge of the game. If you ignore them or change them based on your whim, you make yourself the game rather than the game itself. (The usual caveat applies of course: If that's the sort of thing you and your players like, then carry on.) As well, if you find you're saying, "Nothing happens" or "You don't know" after someone fails a skill check, you are inviting the very behavior you don't want to see! Something should happen on a failed check that moves the game forward. If someone fails a Perception check to find the secret door, they find it, but a trap goes off! If someone fails a knowledge check, they get the information, but they took a lot of time and now something dangerous is approaching! Do it this way - failure means success at a cost rather than "nothing" - and players tend not to do the things you mention in your post.

Headhunter Jones said: So lead with the fiction first. It's the rules of the game you're playing. This is, in fact, a simple premise I like to call "Roleplay before roll." You tell me what you do, what you say, or what you think about as a character. The idea, at least, is that your action should be unbridled by the concept of what you as a player know to be the correct action for the situation. If you are talking to an NPC and trying to encourage them to help you, don't say "I want to use my Diplomacy skill.", because that's meta. Diplomacy is a concept, not an action. TELL ME what you say, and I'll decide what that check is going to be. Maybe you go and say to the NPC "You should help us before something bad happens to you", and that comes off more as an Intimidate. Or maybe you what you say is convincing enough to the DM that you don't even need to roll. When you're searching a room, don't say "Perception roll", because that contains no information. If you want to get down on your hands and knees and search for a pit trap, or examine that dead body for a hidden key in his pocket, you need to let the DM know THAT information, not what skill check you think you need to use. The more specific you get with what you do as a character, the more information the DM can give back to you. And if there's a DC to spot something with Perception, and you happen to be specific enough that your acting includes you looking in the particular area of that thing, most DMs will eschew the roll, because they want you to act more. That's my point, at the end of the day. Seek to be a better player by actually interacting. You're playing a character, not a character sheet.

Askren said: This is, in fact, a simple premise I like to call "Roleplay before roll." I just call it a "rule" because (at least in D&D 4e), it is a rule just the same as how attack rolls work or what the DCs are for a given action. As per the intent of this thread, it should be noted that stating an action with or without descriptive flourish (in either 1st- or 3rd-person) is not necessarily roleplaying, unless that action is also something your character would reasonably do given the in-game context. You tell me what you do, what you say, or what you think about as a character. The idea, at least, is that your action should be unbridled by the concept of what you as a player know to be the correct action for the situation. If you are talking to an NPC and trying to encourage them to help you, don't say "I want to use my Diplomacy skill.", because that's meta. Diplomacy is a concept, not an action. TELL ME what you say, and I'll decide what that check is going to be. Maybe you go and say to the NPC "You should help us before something bad happens to you", and that comes off more as an Intimidate. The bolded part (emphasis mine) is the Actor stance preference you've mentioned earlier. In addition to what they do/say/think, I prefer if players tell me what their goal and intent is so that I'm on the same page. It does me no good as DM to tell a player something is Intimidate when they intended to go a softer more diplomatic route and I just heard it differently. That just creates misunderstandings. Also, knowing what the player's goal is helps make it easy to determine what failure looks like. The basic process I use is: 1. Player wants character to achieve X. 2. Check to see if X is in conflict. If yes, then a roll may be called for. If no, then they succeed. 3. On a successful check, they get X. On a failure, they usually get X plus pay a cost, now or later (as opposed to they don't get X). Or maybe you what you say is convincing enough to the DM that you don't even need to roll. When you're searching a room, don't say "Perception roll", because that contains no information. If you want to get down on your hands and knees and search for a pit trap, or examine that dead body for a hidden key in his pocket, you need to let the DM know THAT information, not what skill check you think you need to use. The more specific you get with what you do as a character, the more information the DM can give back to you. And if there's a DC to spot something with Perception, and you happen to be specific enough that your acting includes you looking in the particular area of that thing, most DMs will eschew the roll, because they want you to act more. Eschewing the roll when the rules otherwise say a roll should be made enters into "gaming the DM" territory. It's easy to spot. All I would need to do is figure out the things the DM gives auto-success to and then I will only do those things. This is when the DM makes himself the game instead of actually playing the game to find out what happens. It's a form of illusionism in which the DM will shift events to the PCs favor if they jump through his hoops or play to his biases. Of course, illusionism is very common in games like D&D even if it's not an intended outcome of the game system. Lots of groups love it. I don't. I'd rather play the actual game. That's my point, at the end of the day. Seek to be a better player by actually interacting. You're playing a character, not a character sheet. Agreed. That is my preference, too.

It does me no good as DM to tell a player something is Intimidate when they intended to go a softer more diplomatic route and I just heard it differently Your NPCs have agency, do they not? They are just characters you as the DM are playing, and as such should logically function by the real world rule of "You can't control how someone perceives what you say, you can only control your intention". So if you intend it to convey one message, but say it in a tone that does not convey that message, logically an NPC wouldn't stop to ask if you meant to say that more nicely. I don't think players should be treated as children, where I have to constantly make sure everything they tell me they're doing is actually what they want to do. I think my problem with your approach is 'rules literalism'. I know the books say they should always succeed because they're heroes and heroes do awesome things and can't fail at simple things like talking to a person. But things don't work organically like that. If there's never a chance for things to go in a way other than the one the players intend, then why are we playing the story at all, when we can just be writing it as a novel? The rules are fine, and they do their job, but I promise you that no D&D game in history has ever worked the way the example scenarios in the rulebook claim they do. Which isn't to say all scenarios are determined by a roll or skill check. Talking to a friend or ally or doing something trivial is one thing, but for everything else, you as a player get a choice of what you do. You don't get a choice as to what happens after, because if you did then why is the DM there at all? All I would need to do is figure out the things the DM gives auto-success to Well, if you're in my game, please do. Auto-success would be on something very specific. If you happen to be through in an explanation of action, and it happens to sync up with something that would require a roll, like checking for traps, then by all means. That's great. But you're never going to just find things I arbitrarily give success for, because that would imply you had complete knowledge of whatever game is being run and knew where all the relevant checks for things are, and how exactly to make them. But assuming you don't, then you'd just end up being extremely paranoid and trying to make sure you were throroughly and exhaustively searching every inch of every dungeon and castle and room in search of that auto-success. Which would probably be a lot harder than just rolling the check.

This is just my obligatory post on one of your topics HJ. I would add something to this convo but we have already spent hours discussing this matter so I really don't have anything new to say lol.

Being new to this board but old to RPing I'm glad to see so many people still take a passionate interest in Role playing. Thank you headhunter for the very nice definitions. I am more aligned with Askren in my prefered style of playing and GM'ing. I much prefer Actor stance as much as possible but will throw in puzzles that call for Author stance to try and challenge players to think creatively about how their characters would/should react in keeping with the rules of the game. I will, however, catch myself slipping into 3rd person as it is a more comfortable way for me to act. I am a terrible actor but a fairly decent writer and I think this may have something to do with it. So, when players in campaigns use 3rd person I understand and am fine as long as they aren't using 3rd person omniscient (metagaming). To Askren's point on metagaming - yes, this annoys the holy crap out of me. Just because, as a frequent player, I am aware of the resistances for a certain foe, that doesn't mean my character knows those things. So, my wizard shouldn't automatically shift from fireball to lightening based on my knowledge. Instead, my character should make a knowledge check to see if he knows and then adjust fire accordingly. Too often I see players go into a fight knowing how best to kill foes based on prior knowledge. Same applies for all aspects of the game and metagaming.

Askren said: Your NPCs have agency, do they not? No, they do not. They are constructs to provide context and/or challenge and nothing more. That I can choose for them to react however I like is an expression of my agency as DM , however. They are just characters you as the DM are playing, and as such should logically function by the real world rule of "You can't control how someone perceives what you say, you can only control your intention". An NPC performs a particular function in the context of the game as described above. Nothing need work in the game world as it does in the real world except as we choose it to. Subverting intent, unintentionally or otherwise, is the source of many conflicts at the table. It helps to be clear by making it plain in the meta sense in addition to squaring the fiction with said intent. This is especially true of an online game where body language may not be so easy to read. As well, it's important to note that even when you're in the Actor stance, the game is meant to test character skills, not player skills. John's bard as a Diplomacy of +15, but John couldn't spell " soliloquy" much less improvise one. Does he take a penalty on his check? So if you intend it to convey one message, but say it in a tone that does not convey that message, logically an NPC wouldn't stop to ask if you meant to say that more nicely. That's only true if you, the DM, say so. You can choose otherwise. You don't have to choose to see it that way. There are no rules making you do that. I don't think players should be treated as children, where I have to constantly make sure everything they tell me they're doing is actually what they want to do. You can both make sure of their intent and not treat them like children. There's no trade-off here and I don't believe anyone in this discussion was making such an assertion. This may be an unintentional strawman argument. I think my problem with your approach is 'rules literalism'. I know the books say they should always succeed because they're heroes and heroes do awesome things and can't fail at simple things like talking to a person. The books don't say that as far as I know. Characters in our games fail all the time. They can fail at talking to a person if their goal in talking with said person is a conflict of some kind. That's when the mechanics come into play to resolve it and not before. But things don't work organically like that. If there's never a chance for things to go in a way other than the one the players intend, then why are we playing the story at all, when we can just be writing it as a novel? I'm not sure what you mean here and this may be another unintentional strawman argument because nobody here is making such an assertion. The rules of a game you're playing tell you when the mechanics come into play. In D&D 4e, a skill check (for example) comes into play when the situation is not mundane and is dramatic. If I intend to play the game by following the rules, then I as DM can't just be asking for checks whenever I feel like it. The mechanics are precisely for adding structure and randomness to determining the outcomes for our improvisation. If you're following the rules, you're playing to find out what happens, not writing a novel. You are creating a story by playing, but that story is a byproduct of play. The rules are fine, and they do their job, but I promise you that no D&D game in history has ever worked the way the example scenarios in the rulebook claim they do. I promise you that they do. Our regular games are remarkably similar to the example scenarios (except with much less the "DM May I?" and "20 Questions" due to use of the Author and Director stance). The reason our game is so is because we follow the rules. We play the game instead of play the DM. Which isn't to say all scenarios are determined by a roll or skill check. Talking to a friend or ally or doing something trivial is one thing, but for everything else, you as a player get a choice of what you do. You don't get a choice as to what happens after, because if you did then why is the DM there at all? Outcomes are determined by a roll or skill check when the mechanics say a roll or skill check is called for. Not before, not after. Where there are no checks to be made (because there is no dramatic conflict) it is left to the DM and players to imagine the outcome of interactions in a collaborative fashion with each role making declarations as appropriate to their social contract. In our group, you can act in Author/Director stance all you want. In yours, it seems you prefer Actor stance. These are preferences. What I see a lot of is the DM standing in as the "challenge" in many scenes that might otherwise include dramatic conflict (and thus skill checks), but eschewing them in favor of judging for himself whether the players have made an adequate attempt at overcoming the challenge. The game and mechanics aren't the challenge here - the DM is. Winning that challenge is just a matter of playing to that DM's bias, whatever it may be. (Perhaps it's appealing to logic to reason, references to how things work "in the real world," use of dramatic acting or histrionics, remembering small details in a way that pleases him or whatever.) I'd rather not play a game like that. It's too easy to win. I like my challenge to be the game, not the DM. Well, if you're in my game, please do. Auto-success would be on something very specific. If you happen to be through in an explanation of action, and it happens to sync up with something that would require a roll, like checking for traps, then by all means. That's great. But you're never going to just find things I arbitrarily give success for, because that would imply you had complete knowledge of whatever game is being run and knew where all the relevant checks for things are, and how exactly to make them. But assuming you don't, then you'd just end up being extremely paranoid and trying to make sure you were throroughly and exhaustively searching every inch of every dungeon and castle and room in search of that auto-success. Which would probably be a lot harder than just rolling the check. Any DM that puts himself up as the challenge of the game is game-able. I don't know if you for a fact do that, but if you do, you leave yourself vulnerable to being gamed. A DM who remains neutral, impartial, and fairly adjudicates the rules according to the game and who doesn't make himself the challenge doesn't have this problem. For the purposes of this thread, I consider "house rules" to be "rules" because both are agreements. That a particular house rule may cause the DM to be gamed is a separate issue.

Paul S. said: Being new to this board but old to RPing I'm glad to see so many people still take a passionate interest in Role playing. Thank you headhunter for the very nice definitions. Thanks for the kind words! My hope is that GMs can use this to help clearly define their games in such a way that they find the players that are the best fit. A frequent complaint is that online games fall apart. I suspect that is largely due to a mismatch in player and DM expectations and a failure to communicate exactly what the group's social contract will be. I am more aligned with Askren in my prefered style of playing and GM'ing. I much prefer Actor stance as much as possible but will throw in puzzles that call for Author stance to try and challenge players to think creatively about how their characters would/should react in keeping with the rules of the game. Good call - puzzles that are solved by way of player skill rather than character skill then justified by the player in the context of the game is Author stance. I'm sure we've all seen Ragnar the Fighter with an INT 6 solve the riddle-door because Ragnar's player Bob is great at riddles. How many "fun" arguments did that kick off, I wonder? Someone versed in the use of Author or Director stance and the "Yes, and..." approach would immediately offer a consistent explanation when asked. "Yes, and this riddle was part of a song my mother would sing to me as a child." (This might provoke me to ask some questions to get him to talk about it more and flesh it out. Now we've learned something new about Ragnar. Maybe even something Ragnar's player never considered.) I will, however, catch myself slipping into 3rd person as it is a more comfortable way for me to act. I am a terrible actor but a fairly decent writer and I think this may have something to do with it. So, when players in campaigns use 3rd person I understand and am fine as long as they aren't using 3rd person omniscient (metagaming). Yes, and talking out-of-character (third-person) doesn't mean you're not roleplaying anyway. It's just a way of communicating the roleplaying. To Askren's point on metagaming - yes, this annoys the holy crap out of me. Just because, as a frequent player, I am aware of the resistances for a certain foe, that doesn't mean my character knows those things. So, my wizard shouldn't automatically shift from fireball to lightening based on my knowledge. Instead, my character should make a knowledge check to see if he knows and then adjust fire accordingly. Too often I see players go into a fight knowing how best to kill foes based on prior knowledge. Same applies for all aspects of the game and metagaming. As above, with Author/Director stances, you'd have to explain this knowledge, but it wouldn't be a problem. In the justification the player offers, we learn something new about the character or the world. I actually stopped defending against metagaming and started offering players the chance to use it in a positive way to make the game better. I realized that it doesn't really help players all that much if you're just playing the game . The DCs are what they are and make the roll when the mechanics call for it to see what happens, plus with every justification of metagaming we were fleshing out the character and world. (Kind of win-win if you ask me.) If instead you're playing the DM, it helps you a lot to metagame and thus comes across as cheating. That's just been my experience though which is anecdotal and not be confused with the definitions being discussed here. I don't know your particular game's social contract either.

GMSoftin said: I'm beginning to think I know you from somewhere else Jones....and that you've squashed me in debates in the past. Also...if you're that guy who shot my character in the face with a bolt when she peeked into a hole and also stole her psicrystal as your first action of the game....can I please join your group? ;p I get around! Here I'm less interested in squashing than I am in separating definitions from preferences in a way that can used by GMs to better communicate their agenda to their players. I don't recall doing that, but I am known for being somewhat ruthless. Being impartial can give you that reputation.

I'm floating this back up to the top of the forum as I keep seeing posts (especially in LFG) that indicate the poster doesn't know what roleplaying actually is. So read this, and now you know! Knowing will help you define and communicate more clearly what you're looking for in your game, attracting the right players and/or finding the right GM. Groups with aligned priorities are more stable and produce the game experiences everyone in that group wants. If you don't know what roleplaying is and are calling something else "roleplaying," or making distinctions like "combat isn't roleplaying," then you may find that you are going to have a hard time getting what you want out of a game. As well, this is a core concept for the hobby. You need to know this. It will make you a better player and GM.

On the topic of being impartial and avoiding being gamed, how would you go about the rules that are explicitly stated to use the GM's judgement in some way. I don't know if the systems you play have any of these (I would be suprised if they don't though) but difficulty modifiers are one example. Many systems will have a rule that goes something along the lines of "Some tasks are easier or more difficult than others, and in these situations the GM can apply a difficulty modifer between -X and +X." then they will usually give you a table of examples as guidelines but it won't be complete enough to use for all (or even a reasonable chunk) of the actual situations that come up in game. How do you avoid personal bias in situations like that?

You should do what the rules tell you. How fair and impartial one is, or how much one eschews bias, is relative to the game being played. Even so, one way is to ask yourself whether the situation even calls for a roll. What I see a lot of are GMs that want to simulate every action a character takes with a check, so naturally the game isn't going to cover every single one of those situations, even with a table of modifiers. So I would suggest starting with the question: Does this action require a roll? What conflict is being resolved here? What is opposing the PC? Are success and failure both interesting? If it is determined that a roll is thus not justified, then the action just succeeds and we move forward. Bring checks into play only when the game sames they need to and this issue pretty much goes away. (Note: Game systems may vary wildly on this point. I can't possibly speak for them all.) Another way is to not play games that rely on the GM's judgment calls so heavily. For example, after playing in a Savage Worlds game, observing another, and reading the rules, I've decided I won't ever run that game (and probably won't play it again). One main reason is how the GM is empowered to hand out "bennies" to players for things that please them. It literally codifies GM bias in a way that can then be used to influence the way the situations in the game play out. I'm not okay with that, not as a player, and not as a GM.

But you can come into situations where a roll is appropriate under those criteria, but logically it should be easier or harder than what the rules explicitly state. A somewhat extreme example: The party is stuck in a burning cargo plane being pursued by an enemy fighter jet. Player A decides that he wants to dive from the cargo bay doors with a knife in his teeth and attempt to land on the cockpit of the pursuing jet. Let's assume the GM doesn't just out-right kill the PC and lets him roll, the action of jumping between aircraft during aerial combat is probably not of the same difficulty of whatever an "average" agility check (lets say dodging a sword swing is the example given in the rules). Here personal bias could come into play quite a bit, a GM that is super-duper-serious might apply a heavier penalty than one that loves it when players pull this sort of stuff.

Logic needn't apply to the corner cases you're really talking about though - only what the rules explicitly say and cover. In fact, that's one of the things you can game GMs with, right? If I know that the GM has a kink for logical arguments, then I'll make those types of arguments to get a lower DC or a bonus to the roll or auto-success (if I'm particularly good or the GM is particularly biased), even if my plan is otherwise iffy. It's all in the presentation and that's a player skill, not a character skill. Replace love of "logic" with "good acting ability" or "creative ideas" and we're hitting many of the things you can use to game a biased GM. In your "extreme" example, I'd have to know the rules of the game you're playing to properly adjudicate the situation mechanically. You're right that personal bias can come into play, but it needn't if you're using the rules as your only judge as to a given conflict resolution. As I said above, how fair and impartial one is, or how much one eschews bias, is relative to the game being played.

In the end Lewis, nothing is completely fair and impartial. If a situation like this comes up, I tend to discuss with my players what could be the bonus (negative or positive) that goes with a situation. At least they're not playing the GM trying to find what pleases you (as in the example Jones is giving you). You're all agreeing on a game situation, which is quite different. And it should be a natural reflex if you cannot find a rule on a specific topic. Just my 2 cents.

Agreed. Asking the players for their input is another way to avoid GM bias. It's possible you get into a whole other form of bias at that point, but experience has shown me that players are far rougher on themselves more times than not. In any case, it costs the GM nothing to err on the side of the players' judgment when a situation is in doubt. This means their buy-in comes attached and ultimately it builds trust.

Asking for group input is actually a really god idea. Thanks.

Askren: The issues you're having are of your own creation, as a result of your preferences. You're trying to control how people act, and that's always an unstable approach. When you reach the point at which you can relax about the behavior you're seeing, and even come to justify it, your problems go away. Surely not every action the players take is handled via in-character vocalizations. They have to state actual actions they're taking, yes? They don't say "I am getting in the car" or "I attack the orc" in character, I assume, since we would tend not to say those things in the real world. At some point, they have to announce things. Talking is just another action, and sometimes it's valid to describe it, rather than perform it. Consider characters in TV and movies and books. You don't always see or read everything they do. Sometimes it's narrated as in "He explained what had happened, carefully omitting some of the incriminating details." Sometimes the characters describe it as in "I can't believe we were in the car for 10 hours. I'm going to go lie down." Try being open about players handling speaking in similar ways. Just try it for a session. Metagaming is a similar situation. Relax about it, and don't hinge the challenge of the game on it not happening and it ceases to be a problem. Besides which, players who do "metagame" are indirectly informing you that they don't enjoy challenges of that nature, so it's just as well not to use them. For one session, don't use challenges that require players to separate player and character knowledge. For another session, take it on yourself to provide the "why?" for player-character information sharing. Assume that it happens and is justified, and be on the player's side. See how that goes.

I would like some clarification on the difference between Author and Director stance, please. I've had a similar concept, lumped it together as part of one category, separate from an In-Actor Category. Can you include an example of each, and explain how they differ. Thank you, in advance.

Interesting thread and I agree on many points but I don't like people telling others how to role-play nor what role-playing is, then proceed to try and convince them that they are doing something "wrong". The wikipedia definition is correct, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't answer anything because in the end, the casually dismissed "preferences" are WAY more important than the self evident and self defined wikipedia entry. There are plenty RP theories floating about and the question "what is role-play" is as old as the concept itself. Each of us can have a way to role-play but all that gives us are links to others feeling the same way and then groups are formed. None is "better" nor needs to be, you only need to find enough people agreeing on the same concepts before you play, that's all. Another point, more personal, is that to me, Author stance and Director stance cannot be included as role-play (on the PC side) because, well, they suggest that no role is played. Yes Author stance will be used by players sometimes, because it's still a game in the end. Director stance? Never. That's why I usually don't give actual puzzles to solve to players for example, only describe that there is one but the solution can only be found by solving the conflict between the PCs and the Puzzle itself. PCs actions can influence such resolution (if they work together, and the like) but in the end, it'll be solved like other challenges. When I use riddles, it's mostly for show because I'll also have the PCs roll on it and depending on their results, I'll PM the player with filtered answers and hints and a critical roll will yield the answer itself. Likewise, when resolving a discussion between a PC and an NPC, I don't really care about how the PC says something per se, but the arguments he uses. Playing Text only on Roll20, I push players to use In Character chat as much as possible, but the intent is always more important than the actual phrasing to me because I don't want to penalize players for whom English isn't their first language. I also have no problem reminding players about their PCs INT, WIS and CHA stats (or whatever the rules you're using) if they start acting out of character. Physical attributes are easy to handle usually but what I expect is also a proper characterization of the Mental attributes and that's something players often forget, using their own and not their PCs. As for "Improvisational Theater", I understand that some like to play this way and with the "yes and..." formula. Headhunter and myself already discussed this so I won't elaborate much, but to me, it simply doesn't apply because a core part of a RPG to me is the GM and it's absolute control over every single fiber of the "reality" the PCs are in. That concept of GMing cannot allow for such interpretation as the "yes and.." theory. That's just my view however :) Jose M. said: I would like some clarification on the difference between Author and Director stance, please. I've had a similar concept, lumped it together as part of one category, separate from an In-Actor Category. Can you include an example of each, and explain how they differ. Thank you, in advance. Imagine two PCs, Alf and Bob. Bob just stole 10 gold from Alf and Alf failed his perception roll to notice it. - In Actor stance: Alf feeling and actions toward Bob remain unchanged. Alf simply doesn't know anything happened. This is strictly role-play in Actor. - In Author stance: Alf becomes suspicious of Bob because Alf's player knows Bob stole from him and Alf goes to check Bob's backpack. The persona Alf has no reason, no logic to go and check Bob's backpack and only does it because the player himself knows. - In Director stance, Alf's player states that Alf confronts Bob, subdue him and get his gold back. There is no conflict resolution, it's just a statement that, because of the Directorial stance, becomes a reality in game. This is something that I often encounter with completely new players who never really heard about RPGs and to whom the concept of GM is completely foreign. I remember when I tried with family members once, they kept stating actions and resolving them directly: I do this and this happens as a result. It's really hard to explain and sometimes people can get frustrated because they are used to think that they control their lives and everything around them. For example, they think that when they go open a box, they control 100% of the result and the box is opened. In reality, that's not the case and in RPG even less so when you have a GM. They're intent is to open the box but the result is not determined by them, but by the box (and other factors). That's why accidents happen.

Jose M. said: I would like some clarification on the difference between Author and Director stance, please. I've had a similar concept, lumped it together as part of one category, separate from an In-Actor Category. Can you include an example of each, and explain how they differ. Thank you, in advance. Roleplaying is about making decisions your character would also make. Stance is about how you arrive at those decisions. Roleplaying is roleplaying - it has a definition and this article is about helping people be clear with it (since I'm rather tired of seeing "My game has more roleplaying than combat in it..." which makes no sense if you know what roleplaying actually means). Stances have definitions too but refer to process and thus preference weighs heavily as to which stances are used during play. You will find that those who prefer strong GM control or who prefer to police metagaming like the Actor Stance and dislike Author or Director stance. Those who understand the metagame is a useful tool for building better scenes and improving pacing prefer use of the Author and Director stance. Games themselves by virtue of their assumptions and rules/mechanics can support one stance over another (though, again, players shift between stances regularly even in games that stress one over another). Author Stance: "The person playing a character determines the character's decisions and actions based on the person's priorities, independently of the character's knowledge and perceptions. Author Stance may or may not include a retroactive "motivation" of the character to perform the actions. When it lacks this feature, it is called Pawn Stance." The key distinction here is that you're acting through your character to affect the game. Your super-intelligent character might deduce that going into the dungeon amounts to suicide and that it would be much safer to practice law instead. You, the player, want to kill monsters and take their stuff because that's more fun for you than pouring over imaginary law books. Instead of saying, "My character wouldn't do that..." and then heading off to law school, you instead imagine reasons to engage with that content of the game, perhaps suggesting his intelligence also makes him arrogant and he thinks himself capable of dealing handily with the threats therein even though he's not much of a fighter. You're still roleplaying here because by establishing his arrogance, you're justifying his decision and roleplaying is about making decisions your character would also make. Director Stance: "The person playing a character determines aspects of the environment relative to the character in some fashion, entirely separately from the character's knowledge or ability to influence events. Therefore the player has not only determined the character's actions, but the context, timing, and spatial circumstances of those actions, or even features of the world separate from the characters. Director Stance is often confused with narration of an in-game event, but the two concepts are not necessarily related." The key distinction here is that you're not acting as or through your character and affecting the game. The GM describes the scene - a torture chamber in which a battle with your intelligent character is fighting. You say you pull a blood-stained rug out from underneath your nearest enemy so that he stumbles back into an iron maiden. The GM hasn't mentioned the rug, nor the iron maiden in his description, but both seem perfectly reasonable for the scene. You've established new fiction in the setting outside of your own character. (At many tables, this is verboten, but in a "yes, and..." group, this is encouraged because it tends to make for more interesting scenes and greater player engagement.) You're still roleplaying here because using the rug to overcome an enemy and trap him in his own torture device is pretty smart and so that is a reasonable decision your character might also make.

So in Playing in Author Stance, the character acts under the archtype, motivations, fears, etc... of the PC itself?

Jose M. said: So in Playing in Author Stance, the character acts under the archtype, motivations, fears, etc... of the PC itself? The player manipulates the PC's behavior to suit his own needs (and that of the story, the group, fun, etc). This is usually done dynamically as situations arise and can lead to slight "retcon" effects. This is what you see sometimes in movies and books when people do things nobody in their minds would ever do but it needs to be done because the Author wants to pushes the story forward. The example Headhunter gave is a good one and overall, if players handle it properly, it really helps in keeping things moving. If players can't handle it however, it can lead to bad things, such as players using their PCs to solve personal issues with other players (as in the example I gave above).

But if the player does something to fit his own needs, without the character's personality traits and such in mind, is that more like the PAWN STANCE mentioned above?

Jose M. said: But if the player does something to fit his own needs, without the character's personality traits and such in mind, is that more like the PAWN STANCE mentioned above? Author Stance is Pawn Stance when the player doesn't offer a fictional motivation to explain the choice. Ragnar, despite having not offered fiction to explain previous fights with trolls, whips out a torch to fight them because the player knows fire hurts trolls. This is pawn stance. A simple non-blocking question like "What can you tell me about the troll attack on Ragnar's home village that informs him that this is a good course of action?" changes it from Pawn Stance to Author Stance when the player offers a reason. (A blocking question would be "How does Ragnar know that?" because it doesn't offer new information in the asking.) The reason could easily be anything as long as it justifies the choice - heard about fire and trolls in a nursery rhyme or even "dumb luck." The social contract of the group will determine whether an explanation meets the threshold for being cheese or not. Suffice it to say, it needn't be cheese (and cheese is relative). Detractors will often present cheesy examples as a backhanded way of editorializing on the process rather than just discuss the definitions. As to your post above your last, G has the right of it. A good way of thinking about it is that in Actor stance you're acting as your character. In Author stance, you're acting through your character with your personal priorities in charge, such as "I love combat encounters so I'm going to get into combat encounters even though my character is otherwise a wimp." This is why a lot of Actor stance players "roleplay themselves into a corner" where they have to say "My character wouldn't do that..." Someone that knows about and uses Author stance puts other priorities first such as moving the game forward and therefore starts with the premise of "My character would do that because it will move the game forward and the justification is X." (If no justification is offered, we're in Pawn stance territory.)

G. said: Interesting thread and I agree on many points but I don't like people telling others how to role-play nor what role-playing is, then proceed to try and convince them that they are doing something "wrong". The wikipedia definition is correct, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't answer anything because in the end, the casually dismissed "preferences" are WAY more important than the self evident and self defined wikipedia entry. I disagree. One, nobody's telling anyone "how to role-play." We are talking about the definition of roleplaying, a definition you agree with by all accounts. It answers as much as it needs to, that is to say, just what roleplaying is. The problem in our hobby is that people use the word "roleplaying" to mean all sorts of things that aren't inherently roleplaying or aren't roleplaying at all. "Talking," for example, or scenes that aren't combats, are referred to as "roleplaying" in contrast to "combat" which is often said to be "not roleplaying" (or worse, "rollplaying"). For as much as they are repeated ad nauseum, they are wrong. I contend that not knowing the true definition and where it applies leads to poor quality games. GMs and players that do know what roleplaying is just this one thing defined above tend to get better results in my experience. So when you start saying "Okay, enough combat, let's do some roleplaying..." bite your tongue and think about what you're saying and what it implies. There are plenty RP theories floating about and the question "what is role-play" is as old as the concept itself. Each of us can have a way to role-play but all that gives us are links to others feeling the same way and then groups are formed. None is "better" nor needs to be, you only need to find enough people agreeing on the same concepts before you play, that's all. "What is roleplaying" is not in doubt. It's a word. It has a definition. " How to roleplay" is different and speaks to preference. We can engage in roleplaying in many different ways, but we're all still roleplaying if we're making decisions our character might also make given the in-game context. Preferences cannot be objectively good or bad, but definitions are definitive (naturally). I agree that you should play with people who share your preferences. Another point, more personal, is that to me, Author stance and Director stance cannot be included as role-play (on the PC side) because, well, they suggest that no role is played. Yes Author stance will be used by players sometimes, because it's still a game in the end. Director stance? Never. The stances being discussed are all roleplaying, if you're making a decision your character might also make given context. I provided some examples in the post above. That you like Actor stance, occasional Author stance, and eschew Director stance is a preference. That's why I usually don't give actual puzzles to solve to players for example, only describe that there is one but the solution can only be found by solving the conflict between the PCs and the Puzzle itself. PCs actions can influence such resolution (if they work together, and the like) but in the end, it'll be solved like other challenges. When I use riddles, it's mostly for show because I'll also have the PCs roll on it and depending on their results, I'll PM the player with filtered answers and hints and a critical roll will yield the answer itself. Likewise, when resolving a discussion between a PC and an NPC, I don't really care about how the PC says something per se, but the arguments he uses. Playing Text only on Roll20, I push players to use In Character chat as much as possible, but the intent is always more important than the actual phrasing to me because I don't want to penalize players for whom English isn't their first language. I would hope you're resolving conflicts, in whatever form, by using the mechanics of the game you've chosen to play (assuming they apply to the given situation). I also have no problem reminding players about their PCs INT, WIS and CHA stats (or whatever the rules you're using) if they start acting out of character. Physical attributes are easy to handle usually but what I expect is also a proper characterization of the Mental attributes and that's something players often forget, using their own and not their PCs. This is a whole other can of worms that I won't get into here. Suffice it to say I disagree. Imagine two PCs, Alf and Bob. Bob just stole 10 gold from Alf and Alf failed his perception roll to notice it. - In Actor stance: Alf feeling and actions toward Bob remain unchanged. Alf simply doesn't know anything happened. This is strictly role-play in Actor. - In Author stance: Alf becomes suspicious of Bob because Alf's player knows Bob stole from him and Alf goes to check Bob's backpack. The persona Alf has no reason, no logic to go and check Bob's backpack and only does it because the player himself knows. You're describing Pawn Stance here since your example doesn't include an explanation of why Alf is now suspicious of Bob. Author stance might be "I count my coins as I always do before getting into town and notice I'm short. Since Bob's been the only other person that has gotten close to me recently, I get suspicious and check his backpack." - In Director stance, Alf's player states that Alf confronts Bob, subdue him and get his gold back. There is no conflict resolution, it's just a statement that, because of the Directorial stance, becomes a reality in game. This is something that I often encounter with completely new players who never really heard about RPGs and to whom the concept of GM is completely foreign. I remember when I tried with family members once, they kept stating actions and resolving them directly: I do this and this happens as a result. It's really hard to explain and sometimes people can get frustrated because they are used to think that they control their lives and everything around them. The rules of the game you're playing should tell you when to use the mechanics to resolve conflict and when it's left to collaboration. If the rules of the game don't come into play in a given interaction, then it's up to the group dynamic to determine outcomes. This goes back to playing with those who play in the ways you prefer. I personally would prefer it if (1) the players didn't choose to have their characters steal and attack other players' characters and (2) if there is PC conflict that it be resolved without mechanics through collaboration and agreement with the target of the hindering action deciding the outcome such that this isn't unilateral. So we're back to preferences here in your example. For example, they think that when they go open a box, they control 100% of the result and the box is opened. In reality, that's not the case and in RPG even less so when you have a GM. They're intent is to open the box but the result is not determined by them, but by the box (and other factors). That's why accidents happen. It's not "reality," as you say. Just preference. Since I prefer Director stance, I don't really mind if they determine how the box is opened or what's inside of it. If I did care, I'd frame that accordingly so that it exists in the fiction and can't be contradicted: "The box is locked and contains X. What do you do?"