Do you really Role-Play, or do you Character-Assume?

[Skarg]

In campaign play, we role-played, and got really into the campaign play. The PCs and NPCs were always not us, although in many cases the PC personalities were in many ways not far off our own.

In Death Tests, and for-fun one-off combats, we often didn't roleplay much, though.

As we got older and more experienced, we roleplayed more and better.

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

The players would in fact play themselves

I don't think it's as simple as that. A lot of people have a default personality or characteristics that repeatedly appear in their characters. But those characteristics aren't necessarily the player's personality. For instance the character might be a fantasy. Or the personality might be appropriate to the way they like to play: curious if they like investigating things, even if the player isn't particularly curious themselves. And nearly all PCs are unreasonably brave.

[Jim Kane]

And, the *complete* sentence was:

"The players would in fact play themsleves, but with the enhanced attributes and talents of the figures which represented the *TFT-version of them*, and not the other way around." - Where the enhanced attributes and talents would allow their alter-ego, played through the figure, to do and exhibit qualities they personally could not, or would not do, in the real-world; like being a much braver version of themselves.

JK

[Jackal]

Is there really a difference?

Everyone always role-assumes. Some take it to the next level and role play.

So yeah, both for me, too, depending on situation. And usually at the same time. My role at the table is the biggest deterimant.

As GM, I roleplay all the NPCs: that's my job. In fact, I need to be careful NOT to make the "best" decision, but the most "appropriate" one. That big orc might lord it over his tribe, but he doesn't know he's only a 34 point NPC: he'll negotiate from his (mistaken) position of strength and charge into combat if he thinks he should.

As player, I'll do as the others are doing. Nothing is weirder than a cosplayer at grognard table, or more of a drag than a player who refuses to suspend disbelief when the other players do.

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by Jackal

Is there really a difference?

I think so. In the one case, you project your own personality and attitudes into the situation, and based on the fact that you have these enhanced abilities, decide what you would do. In the other case of total character-immersion, you determine what your character - who could be wholly alien to yourself in personality and attitude - would do; which can be completely exclusive of your own personality and attitudes.

So I see the difference as: "What would I do?" vs "What would this character do?"

JK

[zot]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

I think so. In the one case, you project your own personality and attitudes into the situation, and based on the fact that you have these enhanced abilities, decide what you would do. In the other case of total character-immersion, you determine what your character - who could be wholly alien to yourself in personality and attitude - would do; which can be completely exclusive of your own personality and attitudes.

So I see the difference as: "What would I do?" vs "What would this character do?"

JK

I used to have a role playing game called Timeship where you actually did play yourself with enhanced abilities.

[Stormcrow]

I've never heard this distinction between "role-play" and "character-assume" before.

I am reminded of Gary Gygax's book, Role-Playing Mastery, wherein he defines role-assumption as

a type of game that prescribes the characteristics of the game persona to be played by participants and has strict definitions of the scope and limitations of actions possible by the player character. Examples are multiple-choice game books and board games with so-called role-playing (actually role assumption) included in their rules.

and role-playing as

the term describing a game system that allows freedom of choice as to the type of character played, personalization of the player character, its actions, and its general activity. Typically, characters’ actions in a role-playing game are limited only by very broad parameters, common sense, and imagination.

Take those as you will.

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

I've never heard this distinction between "role-play" and "character-assume" before.

Well, call them "Style A" and "Style B" if you prefer; which style did you do?

JK

[pyratejohn]

It's all over the map. One night I've seen people play their character to the hilt, and then the next session, after having a tough day at work, all they wanted to do was shove their character's sword up to the hilt in the nearest baddie.

I don't dwell on it too much. We are gathered around the table with food, spirits, dice and an intent to have fun. If, at the end of the evening everyone has had fun, "We have won roleplaying." (Yes, that is an actual quote.)

[Stormcrow]

I don't do the method-acting thing. I also prefer games that keep players ignorant about information their characters don't know. But characters are not literally you in a character-suit; they've got their own personalities. A light touch is needed to make them come through without turning into bad acting. The emergent narrative of the adventure is more important than the portrayal of character in the moment.