This World of Warcraft player is attempting to get Noor, his pacifistic gnome, through the game without killing anything. This is a crazily fascinating experiment, to be sure, and a demonstration of the gameplay flexibility inherent in an MMO like WoW. The player’s rationale — that his zombie priest and gnome rogue are pacifists — is narratively compelling, and he has an interesting bit of backstory for the undead priest, but is the restriction of game behavior, by itself, roleplaying?1 If I restrict my actions in Settlers of Catan, am I roleplaying?
Where’s the boundary for you? Is any voluntary nerfing potentially roleplaying? Does it count only if I have a colorful bit of characterization to support it? Does characterization that benefits a toon or his player not count as roleplaying because it contributes to success? These are loaded questions, yes, but I ask them because I hope they’ll go off and hit something.
I put it to you: Is this roleplaying?
1.This isn’t to say that Noor’s player doesn’t roleplay his character beyond his pacifism. I don’t know if he does or not. This question isn’t about him but about all players. If I simply choose to make a Hunter character but avoid using ranged weapons… am I roleplaying?
Hell yes it’s roleplaying. If you’re deciding what your mans will do on a moment to moment basis, then you’re roleplaying.
I see no reason to link the will to succeed, or have the character succeed, with roleplaying. Certainly most players want to succeed and many characters also want to succeed.
Personally I draw the line based on a few factors: First, the activity must be social (possible in WoW). Second, the player must make decisions for or as characters or character (happens in WoW). Third, those decisions must matter in the fiction in a way the player cares about. The third factor is essentially subjective, and is certainly possible in computer games as long as the player’s interest corresponds with the programming or emergent social structure of the game in question.
In short: I can’t read minds, I don’t know. Nerfing one’s character or oneself I find utterly irrelevant to roleplaying. See also: a post on D&D forums.
I think there is an element of roleplaying to it, but the element is obviously limited by the system that is being used. Being a video game it is hard to make those roleplaying elements affect the base system that determines success or failure. Something as wide as an MMO like WOW has options for him to advance without combat, but it is still based mostly on combat. So it is roleplaying, just slightly disassociated from the system of the game.
“If I restrict my actions in Settlers of Catan, am I roleplaying?” – I’d say it depends on why you are doing it and if you are sharing it. If you say “I’m not spending resources on x” then you might be in your own mind. I do that all the time in video games, building a story of my own around what else is happening. If you are saying “I’m not spending resources on x, because I’m saving them to stockpile for a harsh winter” then you are sharing your story with the group. It shares the motivation, and some of the narrative. Depending on the game and the motivation it may or may not work well, but it is roleplaying.
Since the player is making choices based on his character’s psychology, he is playing a role.
For me, it depends on the player’s goal, which may or may not be clearly defined. If a player defines his goal as “I wanted to try playing a pacifist”, then I see that as much different as a player who says something like, “I wanted to play a FPS without using any ranged weapons” or “I want to play chess moving only my pawns”. I see a lot of examples in video games where players intentionally limit their options in order to challenge themselves or to explore a new gameplay experience, and you can’t really say they’ve defined their goal from a character or roleplaying standpoint.
Metroid speed runs, getting to Gannon in Zelda with only the basic sword, beating StreetFighterII with only the weak punch, etc. There’s no conscious effort to roleplay, the player is just looking for a more interesting challenge.
As far as the pacifist Noor goes, it sounds like roleplaying because the player has an in-character rationale and worked out some kind of backstory. But I could also see an argument that roleplaying is a minor secondary goal, and the primary goal may just have been to see if it could be done. In which case, the answer to the original question may not be stricly boolean.
It seems to me that if there’s a character in a situation/environment/story (a “role”) and a real person makes decisions as if they were that character instead of who they are in real life (they “play” that character), then they are roleplaying. If your CRPG paladin doesn’t dig through barrels and rubbish heaps to find spare coins because it’s beneath his dignity, you are roleplaying. If your pencil and paper RPG character selects weapons based on their to-hit and damage bonuses rather than cultural and personal preferences, you are not roleplaying, even though you are participating in a roleplaying game.
I just caught an example on The Simpsons of roleplaying in Monopoly, when Homer landed on Bart’s property:
Bart: You’re a little short this month, Homer.
Homer: You know I’m good for it!
Lisa: You wouldn’t have to charge so much if you hadn’t bought Mom that house on Ventnor Avenue.
Bart: (Glaring at Homer) SOMEBODY has to look out for her.
As much as I’m an “authorial intention is meaningless” analyst of films and writing, I think the definition of roleplaying probably comes down to intention.
I say that to be motivated by and make choices based on the psychological characteristics invented for the character is roleplaying. Voluntary nerfing is roleplaying if and only if it goes to invented psychological characteristics. If it goes primarily to some goal of the player’s — to challenge himself, for example — it might be laudable and impressive, but I say it’s not roleplaying.