[silvarilon]

Not to pick on you, since you happen to be the last person to post... but isn't this an example of "both sides" (if there even are "sides") missing the point of what the other RPers are doing?

I certainly agree that I enjoy games where the decisions you make and actions you take define your character.

But, while I enjoy many sorts of computer games, for me a *role playing* game has to involve the *character* making decisions that *I* as the player would not make. The character has to be more than just an extension of me interacting with the world.

I'll enjoy Half-Life, or WoW. But in both those cases I use my avatar to interact in the world in the way that I think will best achieves my goals. And my goals are not to "define a character" - they are to "kill that monster" or "get that armor." - despite the label as those games being RPGs (or, at least WoW being one) I don't consider that roleplaying. I consider it game playing.

So, if we accept my rambling above as valid, and assume that part of "defining your character" involves the character making decisions and actions based on their personality, which will sometimes/often be different to the decisions the player knows is best... we can then examine the two extremes you mention.

An extreme hack & slash game, where I walk into the room, drink healing potions, and attack the monsters - is that roleplaying? Well, I'd say it's not, if it's the player making what they see as the best decisions for the character. Drink the potion before you die. Use the best equipment. And if the game actively punishes players that don't behave that way, I'd say the game is discouraging roleplaying (at least in that specific aspect, during the combat)

A simple question. Imagine you're playing a Barbarian. In that game, would it be likely that your barbarian dresses in loose leather clothing, comfortable and familiar from their homeland? Or that they wear plate mail armor because it's more protective? Why? Is it because the mechanics don't allow barbarians to wear heavy armor, and/or gives bonuses for a lightly armored barbarian? Or is it because that's how you think your barbarian would behave? If you run into a priest, would the priest be wearing or carrying their holy symbol with them even if it gives no mechanical benefit? Because they truly believe in their god?

It's those sorts of decisions, I believe, that separate someone who's "playing the game" from someone who's "playing a role" - obviously, there will always be an overlap between playing the game vs playing a role. We all do a little of both, and all have a preference for which we prefer to focus on.

So I truly do believe that even in a H&S game, there is opportunity for roleplaying. At least, as much as the game allows. (If there is no "holy symbol" item, my priest obviously can't carry one... and if there is a limited emoting system, I can't easily define the aspects of my priest's personality for others. But hey, that brings us to the other extreme...)

Will mentions that sitting around a table belching flowery emotes is not roleplaying. I will agree, although that description look like it's intended to be intentionally insulting to players who prefer a more descriptive roleplaying.

But yes, if someone does a three-line emote to show them entering a room, that's not necessarily roleplaying. Again, I'd go back to my question about whether the character is just an extension of the player. Are the emotes just showing how "cool" they are (either by showing how they skulk in, as a moody, hardcore bad guy. Or how they flow in, birds singing, gliding around the room like a Disney princess) - yuck! Seen both done to death.
And do those description then match how they play the character? Does the hardcore bad guy then talk about how many people he's murdered, but then leap to the rescue of another PC in distress to get the chance to be the hero? Are the players looking at the actions of the *other* players around them, and using those experiences to have their characters grow and change in believable ways?

If not, well (here's my chance to be insulting) - then long descriptions of what your character is doing isn't roleplay. It's basically writing a masturbatory fan-fiction set in this game world.

So what would I consider roleplaying in this instance? Being consistent, allowing the character to pay attention and react to the world around them, and then to grow and change based on those experiences. And I'd consider it appropriate to give as much description as necessary to convey those features. Whether that takes five lines, or three words.

So our Disney princess might come into the room, and not need three lines of emotes. It might be enough to enter the room and "smile brightly at everyone". Similarly, the bad guy might "walk in, with his shoulder hunched. He petulantly glares at the people, before sullenly wishing them a good morning." - Sure, that's longer than necessary just to walk into a room, but it gives the other players useful information they can react to. They can see he's being moody, but that he's not actively picking a fight. It also shows that the character and player aren't "the same person" (Who describes themselves as petulant?)
Now, I'd expect things to go further than this. If something bad happened to the Disney princess in the game, I'd expect her to display that through the roleplaying. Maybe she's petulant, or upset, instead of brightly cheerful.

- Similarly, if another player (not knowing if anything happened) notices that the princess is sullen rather than happy - and knows she's normally happy - they should be able to find out *what* happened. Or at least try to find out. And there SHOULD be a reason, something that happened as part of the game. If the reason is "the player is annoyed today" then - again - that's just playing a game. Not playing a role.

So long ramble aside... summary is:
- If the character is responding to what the player wants and knows, rather than responding to the in-game situation as they view it, you're playing a game, not playing a role.
- Defining a character can be done in many ways. What they wear, what they carry, how they speak, what actions they choose to take. As long as those actions lead towards building a story rather than "winning the game" or "getting everyone to pay attention to me" then it's valid roleplaying. Neither H&S games, not flowery emote games have a more valid claim than the other. Both have roleplayers, and both have non-roleplayers.