What is Roleplaying: two playing styles compared
Pubblicato il 14/1/2026
What is roleplaying really in a tabletop RPG?
When people talk about roleplaying in a tabletop RPG, many immediately think of strange voices, theatrical acting, and TV-series monologues. Actually, the simplest and most effective definition is much more concrete: roleplaying means making decisions as your character, not as yourself. In a good tabletop RPG, participants assume the role of a character in an imaginary world and interpret choices, reactions, and emotions within a shared story.
Actions have consequences, regulated by a system of rules, and the combination of these choices builds the campaign’s story.
The falsetto voice, the accent, the dramatic monologue are just optional tools. The heart of roleplaying is asking yourself “what would my character do in this situation” and acting accordingly, even when it would be more comfortable or convenient to do something else from the player’s perspective.
Two very different playing styles: theatrical and conversational
In practice, gaming tables often feature two nearly opposite styles. A recent Reddit thread, born from the question “what is roleplaying?”, compared two groups that many players will immediately recognize. The first style is the more theatrical one, very similar to what you see in some popular actual play shows. Sessions are full of performed dialogue, every non-player character has a different voice, and every scene is played out in detail, from the journey to the castle to haggling at the market. The game master prepares a rather rigid plot and often there’s a subtle dynamic of opposition between GM and players.
The second style is more conversational. At the table, moments of speaking “as the character” alternate with moments of openly discussing what’s happening in the fiction. Players actively participate in world-building, ask questions, suggest ideas, and the game master isn’t an adversary but more of a facilitator. This type of game resembles the approach of systems like PbtA or Forged in the Dark games, where the manual emphasizes the concept of “game as conversation”.
Acting versus roleplaying: an important distinction
One of the most interesting ideas that emerged in online discussions is the distinction between acting and roleplaying. Acting means focusing on expressive modes like voice, gestures, and performance. Roleplaying, on the other hand, means representing the character through their decisions and their perspective on the imaginary world.
A player can be a terrible actor but an excellent roleplayer if they manage to maintain consistency between the character’s actions, their history, and their way of seeing things. Conversely, someone can display perfect accents and monologues but make decisions purely optimized to win the encounter, completely ignoring the character’s motivations and limitations. In this second case, the performance is strong, but true roleplaying is weak.
Many experienced players point out that interesting choices emerge when you give up a mechanical advantage to stay true to your character. For example, a warrior might decide to stay and protect an ally even if it would be more strategic to retreat. This type of decision is the heart of roleplaying, regardless of the tone of voice used at the table.
How much do the system and table culture matter
A recurring question is whether certain game systems “create” different roleplaying styles. Some commentators point out that games like Apocalypse World and its descendants emphasize play-as-conversation, with rules designed to push players to explore characters, relationships, and narrative consequences.
At the same time, many Dungeons & Dragons materials propose highly structured adventures, full of combat and tactical encounters, which encourage an approach more tied to character builds and optimization. However, this isn’t an absolute rule, because what matters most at the table is group culture. There are D&D tables that are very theatrical, others that are extremely tactical, and still others that spontaneously adopt a conversational and collaborative style.
In other words, the system has an effect, but the way the group decides to use it is even more decisive. Manuals, actual play shows, articles, and forums contribute to shaping the idea of what “a good roleplayer” is, but every table builds its own habits and expectations over time.
How to define your roleplaying style
Asking “what is roleplaying” isn’t just theoretical curiosity. Understanding what you actually enjoy at the table helps you choose games, groups, and campaigns better. Some players seek primarily the performance and drama of scenes. Others prefer co-creating stories, with plenty of room for meta-conversation and shared fiction design. Still others are more interested in tactical challenges and character advancement. A good starting point is trying to articulate your own definition. If you had to explain roleplaying without mentioning funny voices or acting, what would you say?
Many veterans sum it up like this: making meaningful decisions in an imaginary world, from the perspective of your own character, alongside other players doing the same. Viewing your group through this lens allows you to identify potential imbalances. If everyone wants an intense, collaborative story but the table is dominated by numerical optimization and consequence-free dungeons, perhaps it’s time to change systems, GMing style, or expectations. If instead everyone is happy with a light, tactical approach, there’s no obligation to transform the campaign into theatrical drama.
Everyone roleplays, just differently
Setting aside online discussions and labels, most groups that play tabletop RPGs are already roleplaying. The difference isn’t between those doing “real” roleplaying and those who aren’t, but between different preferences on how much space to give to acting, tactics, co-creating the story, and the structure prepared by the game master.
The most useful definition remains simple and inclusive. Roleplaying is the process through which players make decisions as their character, within a shared world governed by the game. Everything else, from voices to monologues, from tactical schemes to collaborative world-building, are just different ways of expressing the same basic activity. Understanding which combination entertains you most is the next step toward building more conscious tables and more satisfying campaigns.
Lascia un commento