[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

[bruceb.livejournal.com]

I'm of the view that mechanics matter less than discussion, and how roleplaying opportunities are (or are not) folded into the rest of play. I've seen very, very un-roleplayed CoC where Sanity has all the emotional weight of hit points in bad D&D. Conversely, I see that the new edition of D&D talks about characters' personalities up front, and includes provision for personal and group quests, which give some real heft to roleplayed aims without getting into much mechanics as such during play.

"Is there a mechanic supporting it?" is just a subsidiary question to "Does the game as a whole regard roleplaying as valuable and give it attention?"

[jediwiker.livejournal.com]

My major complaint with "implicit"-style games is that they don't reward you for making suboptimal choices. If I have my father's weapon, and I find one that deals more damage, it's a *mechanically* poor choice to stick with the one that deals less damage. If the game doesn't reward me for choosing to stick with the weapon I've established as my character's "favorite," then the game is telling me "You can roleplay, but we, the game's designers, don't see why you would want to."

JD

[whswhs.livejournal.com]

To me, the important difference between implicit and explicit treatments is this. If I'm in a system that has no skills or traits for social influence, or social perception, then the only thing the GM can say is, "Roleplay it." If I want my character to flirt with the barmaid, or make a good impression at court, or bargain the arms dealer down 20% on a dozen gray market micronuke bullets, I have to come up with the dialogue. And if I'm shy, or socially awkward, or tonguetied, I won't be good at playing those characters, and in practice I may be restricted to playing social misfits like myself.

On the other hand, if there are suitable skills, the GM can have me roll against them to notice a social subtext or to influence somebody's decision in my favor. Which means that anyone can roleplay a "face" character, just as anyone can roleplay a fighter or a thief.

Now, I want to encourage people actually to come up with dialogue that entertains the other players. Once in a while I'll decide that a really good approach is a success; more often, that it gives a bonus to the skill. But a player who isn't good at dialogue can roll against the skill and have the appropriate chance. I see this as a service to the "fantasy" element, just as having combat mechanics is a service to those of us who haven't learned a martial art or gone to fighting practice in the SCA.

[maliszew.livejournal.com]

I think you know my answer to this question already. That said, I don't see anything superior about one approach or the other. My only real concern is that, in explicit games, the mechanics can much more easily become a crutch and a substitute for roleplaying, because, in a sense, that's what they're there for. Social interaction skills are there to make up for the fact that, if I want to play a smooth-talking con man and am, in real life, utterly inept at such things, there's a game mechanic to make up for my own lack of proficiency. Implicit games work under the assumption that, if there are no social interaction mechanics and you wish to play a con man, you'd better be prepared to play the part. If you can't or are unwilling to do that, too bad for you, since you're the one who chose to play a character you lack an aptitude for.

I can certainly understand some players finding that "too bad for you" approach unsatisfactory. By the same token, I strongly sympathize with folks who feel having too (or any) explicit roleplaying-oriented mechanics is a misstep that actually discourages roleplaying.

[whswhs.livejournal.com]

Here's a comparison for you: Quite a few years ago, I agreed to play D&D with a group of people new to me. I chose to play a fighting man, for simplicity of character creation. We came to the first battle, and they asked me what combat moves my character was making. I was puzzled at this, and more so when they asked me to describe or demonstrate the specific attack move my character was making. They were all SCAers who had done some fighter practice, and it hadn't occurred to them that they were gaming with someone whose knowledge was at the level of "the pointy end goes in the other man"—and didn't quite know how to deal with it. It was simply not possible for me to play a warrior in their games, because their approach was, "Just roleplay."

[maliszew.livejournal.com]

Interestingly, I think the default presumption of D&D has always been that combat is something most players require a crutch to be able to do "properly." That's why there has always been rules for handling it, although the detail and extent of those rules has varied from edition to edition.

[smed51.livejournal.com]

Explicit systems have the problem that all too often they become a crutch, and are something that the GM or the other players can use to complain that a player is not correctly roleplaying his or her character. The most obvious example of this for me is D&D's silly alignment system. In the games I have played it doesn't really seem to inspire good roleplaying, but works to prevent it. I don't know how many games I have played in where someone has made in character decisions based totally on the alignment written on their character sheet, and have not even thought about what a real person would really do. The only real successful games I have played in using the D&D rules are games where the alignment system was thrown out the window and the players were encouraged to play their characters as real people.

[ex-sonjaaa.livejournal.com]

If you lived in toronto, I'd invite you to my clockpunk D&D 4e campaign!!

http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/vinchopolis/wiki/campaign-web/main-page

[justinjacobson.livejournal.com]

But it doesn't have to be that way. It doesn't take much handwaving to say: Instead of finding a better weapon, I find something (dust of enhancement, or whatever) that makes my father's weapon better.

Of course, the designer should explicitly note this as a emthod of dealing with these types of issues, but I don't think it is inherent to an implicit system.

[jediwiker.livejournal.com]

Handwaving only works when there's magic in the system (or its equivalent in science, or mutation, or radiation accidents, or what-have-you).

But if my father's weapon is his police-issue .38, and I'm presented with a Desert Eagle .50, it gets kind of hard to handwave to explain why I wouldn't take the weapon with the larger magazine that deals more damage and has better range.

JD

[jediwiker.livejournal.com]

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

To actually answer your original question, in my opinion, explicit systems support roleplaying more.

As for why I think so, well, I covered all of this in a series of blog posts a couple of weeks back--so I'll try not to belabor my point here.

JD

[77im.livejournal.com]

I've always felt that role-playing should be its own reward. I don't necessarily equate it with suboptimal choices, and when the game system does punish someone for role-playing a sub-optimal character, I consider it a flaw in the game's modeling of the intended genre.

[wyldelf.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? If part of the game's focus is on the importance of having the most powerful weapon possible, then any player who ignores that seems to be the one at fault. A character concept of a bedridden noble might be rife with roleplaying opportunities with managing her estate, and an epic plot about the struggle to exercise her power from the bedchamber, but it's still a terrible idea for an action-adventure game.

Implicit and explicit roleplaying support is quite apart from the variety of characters possible. Dogs in the Vineyard is one of the most restrictive on its characters, and yet one of the strongest with explicit roleplaying support. GURPS, on the other hand, would allow all those character types (bedridden, weapon upgrader, heirloom user) and many more, even in the same game, and yet there is very little mechanical support for roleplaying outside of character creation.

What you are discussing is genre conventions, which can influence the roleplaying mechanics in a positive way, even if there's not something that jumps out like social conflict resolutions or stats for personality (or sanity). D&D4 is much more explicit than previous D&D editions, not because there are explicit roleplaying rules, but because the rules are so clearly focused on a certain type of high fantasy action that it helps weed out character concepts that would actively work against the genre conventions.

[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]

Explicit, very clearly supports roleplaying freedom better.

I'm not buying your assumptions that implicit is somehow more open ended that explicit games. I can't always make unexpected choices or work against my traits in old school D&D, perhaps the most implicit system out there. If I am playing a Fighting Man, no matter how much I stake a claim that he was raised by the Church and is a firm believer, I cannot cast Cure Light Wounds and heal the Cleric. I can't think of an implicit system that would let me go against established traits like that. However, most explicit systems perfectly allow it. You may not get a bonus for it, but you're rarely denied outright.

Now, in implicit systems, I've certainly seen players do the unexpected, go against character traits, and improvise - and have done it myself. And more often than not, without the proper guidance, things end up disconnecting from the story so far, feeling ingenuine, or just being plain random, with the player acting on a whim in the moment, which often does not go well. While it might be a "roleplaying experience," it's one so haphazard and unpredictable that if I never experience it again I'll be a happy man.

Where roleplaying was driven by mechanics - which can range from strong rules and guidelines to explicit numbers and stats - I've had unexpected choices, surprising new developments, and all that great stuff come up, but somehow it always maintains a stronger coherency and truth to the story, even though no one saw it coming or planned for it. Because the truth of RP support isn't about limiting character actions, but providing a guided path for group story. In a sense, limiting story path based on group consensus.

There are many ways to get explicit play: conflict resolution, character stats, rules and rewards and punishments, and so on. And there are many ways to use these tools from D&D 4th's genre focus (ignoring story and character completely except in advice) to Primetime Adventures focus on a specific character issues mapped into a overall story arc (leaving genre completely up to the group to decide) to produce a wide variety of play. But I don't think we should mistake that for a linear path. Capes is way more open ended and explicit than Mutants & Masterminds, which in turn is more open ended and way more implicit than With Great Power.... On a macroscale, PTA is much more restrictive than D&D for character fates, but on a microscale its completely reversed for controlling specific character actions, but their explicit and implicit support (respectively) doesn't change, whereas Sorcerer, only a little less explicit than PTA, allows for much more variety and unexpected choices than even 3.x D&D.

RPGs are a bit dysfunctional, and I think it's showing here. They were born from tactical wargaming but influenced greatly by fiction. Many players seem to want specific actions, character's concrete abilities (like being able to hit an orc or lift a battleship) defined and limited by the game, leaving all the mental and emotional stuff completely outside of the rules, as most games were designed for the first dcade or two. Many others want the character's abilities to be able to influence the story, regardless of whether that means something physical like sword fighting or more emphemeral like drives or personality. But a vast majority fall someplace inbetween, and have found a comfortable place in between out of decades of dealing with rules and learning tricks to make roleplaying "just happen" more often and more engagingly. And given the polarized discussions and dysfunctional origins, it just seems easier to stay in that comfortable place than to try the other options, either because they hear misrepresentations like this where the "narrative" games limit character choice, or because proponents often come off as something between directly insulting and holier-than-thou.

[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

[whswhs.livejournal.com]

GURPS, on the other hand, would allow all those character types (bedridden, weapon upgrader, heirloom user) and many more, even in the same game, and yet there is very little mechanical support for roleplaying outside of character creation.

I'm a bit baffled by this statement.

I've run campaigns in a lot of different systems, since I gave up using homebrews, but more GURPS than anything else; I'm currently starting my eighth and ninth GURPS campaigns. I haven't found what you say to be true.

First off, to hit the high concept: My campaigns have variable amounts of physical action—I've run an entire campaign that only had combat rolls on two occasions in two years, and I've run campaigns that had a serious fight roughly every other episode—but they've always been high on characterization, dialogue, and roleplaying. And yet GURPS has emerged as my favorite system.

As for the details: Part of this is that GURPS provides a lot of mechanics for roleplaying. There's the roll to see if your mental disadvantage controls your behavior. There's the reaction roll, to see what NPCs think of your character. There's the influence roll, to try to overcome a bad reaction and induce NPCs (or PCs) to be more cooperative. In short, there's game mechanics for a lot of personality traits and social interaction.

But also, I recently finished running a specifically combat-oriented campaign, based in Paris in 1717. All the PCs were students of a fencing master. This was specifically designed as a test of the advanced combat options in GURPS Martial Arts. And one thing I saw, which I did not expect, was that the players specifically chose different combat moves, based partly on their characters' levels of skill, but partly on their personalities. And conversely, they roleplayed their characters' reactions to the consequences of combat; I treasure the comment from one player who got overoptimistic against a big guy with a club, "Bad Leg and Addiction to laudanum? Sweet!" So I see the more sophisticated range of combat choices in GURPS as aiding not only fight scenes but characterization.

[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.