[RPG Theory] Implicit vs. Explicit Roleplaying

[stevekenson]

A conversation with an RPG industry colleague over dinner led me to think some about different ways roleplaying games handle the actual mechanics, or in-game effects, of roleplaying, measured on a continuum from implicit to explicit:

The “implicit” approach essentially assumes roleplaying “just happens,” as sort of a by-product of playing the game and essentially no rules are needed to cover it. This is how most RPGs initially dealt with the issue: by not dealing with it, at least, not directly. So, 1st edition D&D, for example, has virtually no roleplaying mechanics. How you choose to roleplay your character, his personality, attitudes, history, likes and dislikes, and so forth, have no real impact on game-play. About the only roleplaying mechanic in the game is alignment, and even that is more of a general behavioral guideline than a game sub-system.

The “explicit” approach encapsulates some of the roleplaying experience in the rules of the game. Perhaps one of the earliest examples is Call of Cthulhu’s Sanity system, which not only measures a characters descent into madness, but mandates a certain kind of roleplaying as the character’s sanity deteriorates. A great many explicit roleplaying rules systems provide mechanical incentives for “appropriate” roleplaying, which usually means in accordance with genre conventions and established character traits. They’re systems where how a character thinks or feels is often as important as what the character does.

Interestingly, there’s a perception that implicit RPGs do not “support” roleplaying in-game because they don’t incentivize it in any way, as if roleplaying won’t occur if there’s no clear game system reason for it. However, it could be said that implicit games are the most open-ended, since players are entirely free to play their characters as they see fit, without having to worry whether or not their portrayal syncs with the mechanical requirements of the game. That is, they can make unexpected choices, go against established character traits, or come up with entirely new things on the fly without needing to shoehorn them into their character’s game stats.

When dealing with the “roleplaying experience,” one wonders: Which approach actually “supports” it more?

Comments

[jediwiker.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's that simple. Who's to say that it's the game's problem by having a heritery weapon and not the player's concept?

I think it *is* that simple because if the game doesn't reward the player *somehow* for having a hereditary weapon--or a stutter, or a fear of cats, or whatever unnecessary character trait the player has chosen out of a desire to roleplay--then the game doesn't support roleplaying the same way it supports combat, or puzzle-solving, or social interaction (and roleplaying and social interaction are *not* the same thing).

Implicit and explicit roleplaying support is quite apart from the variety of characters possible.

I don't disagree with you there at all. I maintain that there are only a handful of "explicit roleplaying" RPGs out there--but there are numerous games out there that offer a wide variety of character concept options (usually bounded only by the players' imaginations). What makes those games fail to support roleplaying is that the onus is on the players to actually *want* to roleplay--and someone who chooses not to not only loses nothing, but usually gains something (often in the form of options that a strictly-defined character would not have, such as telling the truth when he'd prefer to lie).

What you are discussing is genre conventions, which can influence the roleplaying mechanics in a positive way

Here's what throws me: What roleplaying mechanics? If an RPG devotes half a column to explaining what roleplaying is, and it never comes up in the rules again, how does that constitute "mechanics?"

JD

[wyldelf.livejournal.com]

Okay, I see what you're saying now and where we disagreed. Yes, not having a reward - or some method to give it an impact - does provide less support. My point is that it's not necessarily a bad thing if the rewards are limited to things that would support the scope of the game. It's really a matter of perspective. I could claim D&D fully supports roleplaying because it rewards me for playing a fighter who is so threatening that he can provoke enemies to strike him instead of his allies. You can claim that it does not support RP because you cannot create a fighter with an heirloom sword and be rewarded.

It's a bizarre problem unique to RPGs (as far as I can tell). Maybe it's because of the culture of mastering a single system and focusing on that that we have the notion that a single game should let us do everything. But I never met anyone who would sit down to play Monopoly, play it as if they were charity housing company, and then fault the game for not working when they do poorly. RPGs are not exempt from the universal correspondence between gameplay and mechanics.

If we are interested in playing a story about a son with his father's sword, a stutterer, or a cat-phobic as defining character traits, then we clearly need to select a game that will let us do so to our satisfaction. So if we pick a game that doesn't reward, or even punishes us, for those concepts, it's either our fault as individuals not adjusting our concepts to fit the game, or its the fault of us as a group for selecting the wrong game.

"What roleplaying mechanics? If an RPG devotes half a column to explaining what roleplaying is, and it never comes up in the rules again, how does that constitute 'mechanics?'"

I dunno. What game are we talking about? I'd agree that a explaination of what roleplaying is isn't mechanics. But I'd argue that any discussion on how to make sure roleplaying comes about in play is mechanics, even if there are no numbers, stats, or rewards attached. D&D 4th's mapping of personality traits to situation reactions is a good example. I brushed past it upon my first read because I looked at it and thought "I could do such much better than that" but that doesn't make it any less of a mechanic. And looking at it again recently after having played a few times I can really see the value in it as a beneficial tool.

[jediwiker.livejournal.com]

It's a bizarre problem unique to RPGs (as far as I can tell). Maybe it's because of the culture of mastering a single system and focusing on that that we have the notion that a single game should let us do everything.

Well, sort of. Part of my rant/analysis on my own blog was that any game that calls itself a "roleplaying game" should include roleplaying as more than just an optional play style.

What game are we talking about?

Pick one. The list that fits my personal criteria is really, really short: Pendragon. (And, no, it's not my favorite game; I've only played it a few times.) Nearly everything else merely qualifies as "a game that allows roleplaying"--though I hasten to add that I haven't read every RPG out there, let alone played them all.

You'll have to pardon my ignorance, here; I've not read the 4E rules. (I'm one of those "grognards.") Where is that in the rules? My wife bought the PHB, but the only thing I can find in there on roleplaying is the stuff that appears on pages 18-20.

JD

[wyldelf.livejournal.com]

"Where is that in the rules? My wife bought the PHB, but the only thing I can find in there on roleplaying is the stuff that appears on pages 18-20."

That roleplaying section actually continues for a few more pages (hard to tell since Dieties placement is a little confusing). I was specficially referring to the section "Personality" on pages 23-24.

Stuff like this appears in other places through the book, and the DMG is chock full of guidelines of this progressive sort, turning the DM's role into a Creative Facillitator instead of Viking Hat Overloard. Now, one could argue that it's optional - certainly it won't strictly prevent you from a successful combat or gaining levels - but I'd say that ignoring that passage is just as disingenuous to playing the game as written as ignoring instructions on how to determine ability scores or select your powers.

[jediwiker.livejournal.com]

That section in the PHB is a decent step toward explaining how to roleplay, but it's only half the story.

Does the 4E DMG offer suggestions on how to reward players for playing the personality traits they've chosen?

JD

[wyldelf.livejournal.com]

No. The DMG has a lot of suggestions on how to reward player creative input in general (including a section on "Say Yes") but the personality stuff isn't specifically called out.