I've been playing Mansions of Madness a lot lately, which is a game I love but also one that inspires a lot of thought about strategy and roleplay. In a tabletop roleplaying game, like Tales of the Valiant or Pathfinder or Shadowrun, you often make up a strategy based on how you think your character would approach a problem. In a board game like Mansions of Madness, or even a wargame like Warhammer 40,000, your strategy is mostly predefined. You know your goal, you can safely assume that everyone that's not you is a baddie and must be eliminated, you only have a given budget of actions, so every action counts. There's no time for distraction or character nuance. If you waste an action doing something sub-optimal for the game because that's what your character would do, then you'll lose the game. That might suggest to you that there's no room for roleplay in a strategy game, but I don't think that's the case. Instead, I think that in a strategy game you just have to roleplay in reverse. Here's what I mean.
When you play a tabletop roleplaying game, the main game loop is that you declare what you intend to do, and then the consequences of your action is calculated. During an in-game social situation, the consequences are how people react to you. Do something that non-player characters appreciate, and you're rewarded. Do something they don't appreciate, and you're shunned or punished.
During in-game skill tests or combat, consequences are determined by a dice roll. Roll a certain number, get rewarded. Roll under a certain number, and bad things happen.
In both scenarios, you're trying something, and then learning whether you were successful or not.
Imagine reversing the tabletop roleplay sequence. Imagine that instead of trying something and then learning the result, you learn the result first and then explain to your fellow gamers what happened and why. That's how roleplay in a wargame or a strategy board game can happen.
First, you move your player token and take an action. Something happens. And then you justify how such a thing, however unlikely given the personalities or equipment involved. could possibly occur in the game world.
Here's an example. In Mansions of Madness, spells are pretty dangerous. Suppose you encounter a book in a library containing an arcane script. If you were roleplaying in the traditional sense, then your character would probably choose not to read it aloud, especially if your character has ever tried to cast a spell in the game before.
But you didn't buy Mansions of Madness to not engage with the game, so you decide to roleplay in reverse, instead. You read the script.
If the script turns out to summon a Deep One that attacks you and your fellow investigators, then you explain to the group that your character felt compelled to read the script. It was as if an alien force had seized control of your mind.
Or maybe your character is addicted to spellcasting. You know it's harmful, you know it hurts those you care about, but you can't help yourself. Or maybe your character just wasn't thinking, or they're over-tired, or desperate.
If the script turns to boost your understanding of the threat, maybe granting you a Clue token or a beneficial card, then the story could be different. Maybe your character had seen this kind of script before and understood that it released forces. Or maybe your character is impossibly optimistic and was hoping for the best, even when there was no reason to believe the strange script could be helpful.
The possiblities are endless, and the point is that your motivation is generated from the result, rather than the other way around.
I've written previous posts about roleplaying in wargames, but reactive roleplay is an important technique for making it happen. Suppose your favourite soldier rushes into an obvious trap, or attacks an impossible foe, or uncharacteristically runs for cover. When your gamble as a player pays off, you can explain it as bravery, a lust for war, intuition, or impossible strategic insight. When your gamble goes wrong and your soldier falls, then you've got to make up the story to account for it.
Most of us tabletop roleplayers actually do this compulsively when we roll especially poorly. I can't count the number of times a gamer in my group has rolled for stealth and gotten a natural 1, and on the behalf of the Game Master declares "...and I kick a can and trip over a rake." Obviously before the roll was made, that wasn't what the player had in mind. The player imagined a character moving fluidly and silently through the shadows, but the dice provided a different story. Dice don't talk, though, so the player steps in and clarifies what actually happened.
Roleplaying in reverse is a natural reaction to how a game is going. I think the key is to take ownership of it, and talk it out. Instead of feeling like a game is going poorly because your dice hate you, take the opportunity to craft a cool story out of the hand fate has dealt you. It's a fulfilling trick. Even after losing a game, you've experienced a compelling and surprising story. Having to invent reasons for unexpected or unlikely game events forces you to exercise creativity in ways that you probably can't anticipate. Who knew that your most valuable soldier had been swapped out with an evil twin determined to sabotage the mission? And how nice is it that the vapid beauty queen was secretly an avid antiquarian?
Next time you feel like roleplaying, but the game you're playing refuses to make room for it, just tack it on at the end of each turn and see what happens. It just might add a whole new dimension to the experience.