RP methods 101

So roleplay means acting as your character, not the player. We all agree on that much. How do you go about that, though? How do you, the player, make other people believe you're actually someone else -- and what's in it for you? Fun, obviously -- but what makes it fun?

I've pretty much decided there's no one answer. The following is a breakdown of a bunch of possible ways and reasons to roleplay, as well as stuff I've noticed when trying them out myself. Just to have said it, while I have my preferences, I consider them all perfectly valid methods of achieving credible IC. There are probably others I'm forgetting or haven't run into, too.

"I think, 'What would Starbuck do?'. Then I do that." Emulation. This is how a lot of rp'ers start out, they see a cool character in fiction and try to play a character to the same effect. Good emulationists will be able to vary the theme enough that the original character isn't obviously identifiable. Emulationists are usually flattered if the character's model is recognised, but don't require it.

PROS -- Tends to produce highly consistent behaviour because the player has a very clear idea of what they want to do. Easy for beginners to relate to. Allows for a wide variety of characters.

CONS -- Done badly makes the char a bit of a cardboard cutout, e.g. a highly devout paladin who however never acts on their faith. Leans on acting skills.

"I think as my character when I'm playing them. I feel what they feel." Immersion. This leans on the assumption that the player can assimilate themselves to the character's way of thinking well enough to act as the character, rather than themselves. It's especially frequent with players who identify heavily with their character and enjoy emotional, dramatic roleplay. An immersionist feels most successful when they genuinely experience the situation, aka cry for real at a sad scene. Immersionists frequently write introspective fanfic.

PROS -- Characters similar to the player are very organic and intuitive. Makes the player very sensitive to the setting. Riding the character's emotions can be a major adrenaline rush.

CONS -- Identifying overmuch with a character's conflicts is the root of 95% of all pointless OOC fights on rp servers. Immersion is almost useless for characters the player cannot identify with, and by nature a very solipsistic mode of play. While it's nice you can sit in a corner experiencing your horrible loneliness without talking to anyone, it doesn't really contribute much to anyone else's experience.

"It's just a model." Simulation. This is what roleplay began as, in the D&D era -- tactical simulation, which evolved the tools to simulate narrative and personalities too. Simulationist play asserts that what the player feels is irrelevant, because roleplay is about creating the illusion of a character for your fellow players. Simulationists are most satisfied when playing in an environment that gives them consistent, plausible input to react to and play with. They tend to be religious about keeping IC consistency inviolate, and frown on any OOC elements influencing IC -- both ruin the fun for them.

PROS -- Works for any type of character, provided the player has the smarts to figure out what makes the character tick. Leans on portraying, not experiencing the character, so tends to give others a lot to interact with. Good for improvising, as they usually have the likeliest possibilities worked out already.

CONS -- Requires a lot of OOC thought, and strikes some as manipulative or fake because of that. Simulationists frequently demand a high level of consistency and detail from others, and are easily frustrated by things they consider unrealistic (whether that's stupid game mechanics, or mechanics beign ignored). Leans heavily on the player having the smarts to do all that math without seeming to.

"...but little did she know that..." Storytelling. A storyteller's focus isn't on the character at all, it's on the narrative the character's life becomes. Storytellers tend to write narrative fanfic, run storylines, and try to introduce continuity between events. Depending on their narrative skills, they can be valuable contributors or the masters of hellishly annoying railroad action. A storyteller is most satisfied when things lead to things lead to other things and eventually, a logical and kathartic conclusion.

PROS -- The only thing better than a good character is a good story for the character to contribute to. Doing that well enriches everyone's experience.

CONS -- A good story is an insanely subjective thing. Storytellers with no narrative skill or no concept of what others find entertaining is a pox on everyone. (Hint: if it's only relevant to your character, you should probably write fiction instead.)

"A guy walks into a bar, and..." Improvisation. This stuff doesn't actually have a plan, it doesn't even necessarily take a character (though good improvisationists can pull one out of their hat at any given time, and all rolepleyers use a -little- of this). Improvisation leans on taking what's there and running with it. An imprivisationist is most happy when random events conspire to become meaningful.

PROS -- Freedom. Some more freedom. Spontaneous, creative, spur-of-the-moment play tends to feel more organic and natural than pre-planned stuff. Improvisers are good at fitting in to interestign stuff where they find it.

CONS -- Pure improv can get erratic, unless the player enforces consistency on themselves. Also, it's a big world and random chance will easily see you seeing no-one interesting for days. Works best as a supplementary method to one of the other methods.

That's it off the top of my head. Hopefully this is interesting or useful to someone. Discuss, disagree, debate, ammend, as appropriate.