RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Is it possible to "Role Play" without playing a Role Playing Game?
Sure, but if she puts on the dominatrix outfit but acts like the French Maid, is it still roleplaying? Wouldn't it be a truer example of roleplaying if the persona and the outfit matched (regardless of which of them you changed to produce the match)?
EDIT: Hm, maybe I should've started with this analogy. The outfit is like the character sheet, and if your acting doesn't match it then this whole "roleplay" thing is a bust. Either start acting like what the outfit suggests, or switch outfits to match how you want to act.
But what happens when the dom outfit is better mechanically than my French Maid outfit?
In some groups, they'll harass me for not choosing the dom outfit because my French Maid outfit is "sub-optimal."
I'm there to roleplay, and supposedly the rest of the group as well. Yet certain systems seem to pressure one into rollplay rather than roleplay. (Of course, it also depends on the group. Some are better at hand-waiving mechanics because they're more interested in the roleplay aspect. At least, that's been my experience.)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But what happens when the dom outfit is better mechanically than my French Maid outfit?
In some groups, they'll harass me for not choosing the dom outfit because my French Maid outfit is "sub-optimal."
Sounds to me like you're so busy being offended at the suggestion that your preferred outfit might be of a lower quality level that you've forgotten that pretending to be a French Maid was never really the point of the evening.
If you really want to be the French Maid, ascertain the level of the quality gap. If it's minor, ask your partner to overlook it because that's what you want to be tonight. Or if the outfit really is a piece of crap, then it might not be fair to ask your partner to try and get hot while looking at that, so maybe you should do a little quick needlework or hit up a different store and find a new French Maid outfit that isn't so ugly (and if there's no time tonight, consider being a team player yourself and being a dom for one night, then bringing a better French Maid experience tomorrow). Or if your partner won't consider your preferences in this experiences, show them the door.
Seriously, it's really not that complicated of a situation to resolve for a pair of mature adults.
I'm there to roleplay, and supposedly the rest of the group as well. Yet certain systems seem to pressure one into rollplay rather than roleplay. (Of course, it also depends on the group. Some are better at hand-waiving mechanics because they're more interested in the roleplay aspect. At least, that's been my experience.)
Perfect example of the "roleplay means the talky, non-mechanical part" error.
Perfect example of the "roleplay means the talky, non-mechanical part" error.
Not really. That's not what I was saying by that. Some systems' mechanics support roleplay more than others, and with some the mechanics get in the way. So often it comes down to the group and what their preference is.
I find Pathfinder gets in my way, but if that's the system we're using, some groups are better than others at letting the mechanics be in the background and focus more on what we're doing and trying to do in the game. 5e seems better at that because it's less defined.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perfect example of the "roleplay means the talky, non-mechanical part" error.Not really. That's not what I was saying by that. Some systems' mechanics support roleplay more than others, and with some the mechanics get in the way. So often it comes down to the group and what their preference is.
I find Pathfinder gets in my way, but if that's the system we're using, some groups are better than others at letting the mechanics be in the background and focus more on what we're doing and trying to do in the game. 5e seems better at that because it's less defined.
Then what do you actually mean by "roleplay"?
Perhaps better stated as:
"I prefer the roleplay involved in [game 1] compared to [game 2]"
Roleplaying is goodrightfun. Not roleplaying is badwrongfun.
I think role-playing is the talky part. If a game ad says "Role-playing required," don't expect to show up and claim you're role-playing simply because you described your character as strong and took the Power Attack feat.
Some people are role-playing snobs that treated those that didn't role play well poorly or claimed they were doing it wrong.
So now we've endured years of people trying to redefine role-playing so that they can prove the snobs wrong.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think role-playing is the talky part. ....
So now we've endured years of people trying to redefine role-playing so that they can prove the snobs wrong.
And here I thought I was just defining it based on what the word actually says: playing a role. Made sense to me, from a linguistic standpoint, that the meaning of a compound word would be strongly linked to the meanings of its component parts. How did you arrive at the conclusion that it instead meant "the talky part"? I'm curious to follow the thought-path that makes "talking" the true definition and "playing a role" the forced re-definition of the word "roleplay".
How did you arrive at the conclusion that it instead meant "the talky part"? I'm curious to follow the thought-path that makes "talking" the true definition and "playing a role" the forced re-definition of the word "roleplay".
Role-playing was defined as such for me when I started playing D&D in the late eighties. When I played with others outside of my immediate group and used the term role-playing, most people seemed to share a similar definition.
The thought path goes like this:
- Role-playing is defined as talking in character.
- Some players are identified as good roleplayers, others are identified as bad roleplayers.
- Players who are identified as bad roleplayers are called out, spoken bad about, treated badly by GMs and other players in an effort to get them to role play.
- Players identified as bad roleplayers find groups of others like themselves, spend time complaining about being called bad roleplayers.
- Group of players defined as bad roleplayers explain how they're actually good roleplayers because of x,y,z reasons.
- Group of players defined as bad roleplayers generate new definitions of good role-playing that doesn't conform to the older definition.
- New definition gains acceptance among various groups.
- Result of this entire process = role-playing redefined to include things other than talking in character as role-playing.
- Years of internet arguments ensue over "correct" definition of role-playing.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The thought path goes like this:
- Role-playing is defined as talking in character.
Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. The thought path I'd like to see is how you get to the idea that roleplaying is defined as talking in character, not the thought path that goes from there to your other points about ensuing arguments.
Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. The thought path I'd like to see is how you get to the idea that roleplaying is defined as talking in character, not the thought path that goes from there to your other points about ensuing arguments.
That's short and sweet - when I was taught how to play D&D, role-playing was defined as talking in character. That's it.
Why are the other parts of the game not roleplaying?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
That's short and sweet - when I was taught how to play D&D, role-playing was defined as talking in character. That's it.
So you believe roleplaying means talking in character because the people you played with said so?
There are two definitions being discussed here. You want to assert that yours is the real definition, and that the other is a fabrication that was invented in order to achieve a specific goal. The one you're asserting is a fabrication is the product of looking at the actual components of the word. You are asserting that your definition is somehow more primary than that.
And the reason we should believe that your definition is more primary than the one based on delving into the roots of the word itself is because that's what you were told when you started playing?
Really? That's what you're going with?
There are two definitions being discussed here. You want to assert that yours is the real definition, and that the other is a fabrication that was invented in order to achieve a specific goal. The one you're asserting is a fabrication is the product of looking at the actual components of the word. You are asserting that your definition is somehow more primary than that.
Its not about real definition versus fake. Its about a commonly understood definition from an early era of the game's history versus the definition that evolved among some groups over time.
And the reason we should believe that your definition is more primary than the one based on delving into the roots of the word itself is because that's what you were told when you started playing?
You can believe whatever you choose. I'm not trying to win converts; simply provide another viewpoint.
The question is what is role-playing? I contend that the term was fairly unambiguous during the eighties and early nineties within the hobby. The term became muddied as some sought to redefine it in later years.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
simply provide another viewpoint.
Providing another viewpoint would be the part of your post where you said that you see roleplaying as meaning in-character speech.
However, that's not all you did. You then went beyond simply providing your viewpoint, and actually declared that viewpoints besides your own are fabrications, and then went even further and assigned motives to the holders of those viewpoints.
Just because your post includes the presentation of your viewpoint does not mean that's all you did, and does not excuse your other behavior.
Moving on from that:
The question is what is role-playing? I contend that the term was fairly unambiguous during the eighties and early nineties within the hobby. The term became muddied as some sought to redefine it in later years.
What if what happened "in later years" was not that some sought to redefine a previously unambiguous term, but rather that you finally got exposed to other ideas (which may even have dated back as far as your own)?
Just because your post includes the presentation of your viewpoint does not mean that's all you did, and does not excuse your other behavior.
You seem to be taking this as a personal insult. No insult is intended, nor am I concerned about your opinion on my behavior.
What if what happened "in later years" was not that some sought to redefine a previously unambiguous term, but rather that you finally got exposed to other ideas (which may even have dated back as far as your own)?
Then I would be wrong.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I can help, how far back should I start? Original? Chainmail?Hmmm. Maybe I'll go back at look at the intro in the original PHB, just to see if roleplaying is actually given a definition in there anywhere.Oooooh, you have the means to do that? Please do! That would be fascinating. :D
Wherever it talks about "roleplaying", I guess?
Let's see, AD&D Player's Handbook page 7 under "The Game" tells us the following:
You act out the game as this character, staying within your "god-given abilities", and as molded by your philosophical and moral ethics (called alignment). You interact with your fellow role players, not as Jim and Bob and Mary who work at the office together, but as Falstaff the fighter, Angore the cleric, and Filmar, the mistress of magic! The Dungeon Master will act the parts of "everyone else", and will present to you a variety of new characters to talk with, drink with, gamble with, adventure with, and often fight with! Each of you will become an artful thespian as time goes by-and you will acquire gold, magic items, and great renown as you become Falstaff the Invincible!
So a degree of acting was certainly suggested.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So a degree of acting was certainly suggested.
Nobody was suggesting that acting was not included, just that first-person speech is not the entirety of what roleplaying means.
Anyway, were there any headings or anything to suggest that the excerpt you provided (thanks, by the way) was an explanation of what it is to "roleplay"? It refers to the other players as "fellow role players", but that doesn't really mean much in the context of the question at hand.
Assuming for a moment that this is that book's "definition" of roleplaying, there's quite a lot of stuff included beyond in-character speech: drinking/gambling (i.e., non-speech social interaction), adventuring (that's gonna include a lot of dice!) and even combat. It even describes the acquisition of gold and gear as part of the process of "becoming" your character.
So a degree of acting was certainly suggested.Nobody was suggesting that acting was not included, just that first-person speech is not the entirety of what roleplaying means.
Anyway, were there any headings or anything to suggest that the excerpt you provided (thanks, by the way) was an explanation of what it is to "roleplay"? It refers to the other players as "fellow role players", but that doesn't really mean much in the context of the question at hand.
Assuming for a moment that this is that book's "definition" of roleplaying, there's quite a lot of stuff included beyond in-character speech: drinking/gambling (i.e., non-speech social interaction), adventuring (that's gonna include a lot of dice!) and even combat. It even describes the acquisition of gold and gear as part of the process of "becoming" your character.
No particular headings were given; this all takes place in the Introduction to the book with that brief commentary on roleplaying along with a note in the Foreward to "get into the spirit of the game and use your persona to play with a special personality all its own."
The rest of the material tends towards what is expected of the DM and how to have a successful party before getting into the meat of character generation. Even the adventuring chapter deals more with how to have a successful team and how to make the most out of being in dungeons.
Jiggy,
I believe the original discussion about role-playing vs roll-playing was covered by Gary Gygax or Dave Arneson in one of the early issues of Dragon Magazine. Quite possibly several issues. I remember Gary writing several articles for "Up on a Soapbox".
There-in would be the original definition you appear to be looking for.
Why are the other parts of the game not roleplaying?Short of a definition where any part of playing a game billed as a role-playing game is roleplaying, which is simple, but doesn't seem very useful for talking about different phases of the game and different ways of playing.
It seems silly to me to talk about adding up your damage as "roleplaying" to use a very reductive example.
Beyond that, defining roleplaying as anything done while playing a roleplaying game also means you can't meaningfully talk about roleplaying while doing anything else - other than the other definitions (bedroom games and therapy work) from which the gaming usage likely derived.
Often in other games, particularly non-RPG computer games, strategy games and the like, I will begin thinking as if I were a character making decisions there, not just me making tactical/strategic decisions, but a character with his own preferences and foibles. I think of this as roleplaying - even though it's not a roleplaying game.As far as I am concerned the name works the other way around - A roleplaying game is a game designed for roleplaying. You can still not roleplay within that game and you can do so in a game not designed for it.
Hence my comment last page, that separating the two concepts, not just via context, but actual different words, would make the discussion more clear and fruitful.
Instead, every time someone uses the phrase "I think roleplaying is" we have to go over and over it, compare it to everyone else's definition and constantly rehash what exactly does and doesn't qualify as "roleplaying".
I would consider adding up the damage to part of roleplaying. The thing is, you don't add up damage in a vacuum. You do it as part of your character's actions.
Example: My character has sworn vengeance on someone. In order to fulfill my vendetta, I ignore helping my allies to kill my target. Since making the attack is something that is guided by the story of my character, isn't the attack roll and damage PART of roleplaying that character? Isn't following through on the mechanical rules of the game, that are triggered by my character's decisions, part of roleplaying?
I don't think a useful definition of "roleplaying" can exclude this example. I don't think you can include the motivations for an action, but exclude the process and results of that action, because the results are what will inform how I roleplay my character next.
My actions, as informed by the character's personality/backstory, will be different if the blow results in my target's death or not. The damage is necessary and important information that is tied at both ends to my roleplaying.
Here's one of the first I remember encountering:
What is "role playing"?
This is a role-playing game. That means that you will be like an actor, imagining that you are someone else, and pretending to be that character. You won't need a stage, though, and you won't need costumes or scripts. You only need to imagine.This game doesn't have a board, because you won't need one. Besides, no board could have all the dungeons, dragons, monsters, and characters you will need.
For now, while you are learning, you will play a role in your imagination. Later, when you play the game with others, you will all be playing different roles and talking together as if you were the characters. It will be easy, but first you need to get ready.
And I still say that's not the root of the problem. I've never seen, for example, someone shocked at the idea of "roleplay heavy" session.
This is my experience as well. I've never actually had someone confused when I advertised for a role-playing required campaign.
Where is that from, just out of curiosity?
Frank Mentzer red box Basic D&D Player's Manual.
The trouble with that argument is that the term "roleplaying" really is the right word for what I (and I think Jiggy, with some variations) am talking about. You're "playing a role". Much like in a play or in improv. Or in roleplay therapy or similar things.
It's a good descriptive word for the thing we're talking about. You would need to either change the name of the hobby, which doesn't make sense, since the point of the hobby is to be a game where that kind of roleplay works, or you would need to come up with an equally appropriate term, which didn't carry too much excess baggage.
And I still say that's not the root of the problem. I've never seen, for example, someone shocked at the idea of "roleplay heavy" session. "It's all roleplay! That doesn't even make sense."
We can be confused about exactly what the other person meant by "roleplay", but it's not like saying "That was a very football heavy football game."
That roleplay is part, but not all of an rpg is pretty commonly accepted. Exactly where the lines are drawn is what prompts all the debate. And that debate would be the same if we called it veeblefetzing instead.
Have there been disagreements about what qualifies as roleplaying and not roleplaying in this thread?
So, when a term consistently has large amounts of disagreement about what falls within it's definition and what doesn't, would you consider that term well defined? Or poorly defined?
I think you're oversimplifying thejeff's point a little.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
And I still say that's not the root of the problem. I've never seen, for example, someone shocked at the idea of "roleplay heavy" session.This is my experience as well. I've never actually had someone confused when I advertised for a role-playing required campaign.
*raises hand*
Used to be when I heard people talk about "requiring roleplay" or some such, I thought they just meant not doing metagamey things (like automatically recognizing people because they're PCs, or communicating during battle without expecting the enemies to hear you). Eventually, from enough contextual examples, I figured out that a lot of people meant "talking to NPCs", and my internal reaction was "Huh? That's not all roleplay is, and it might even be the OPPOSITE of roleplay, if your speech doesn't match the character."
So now you've both encountered such a person.
Loathe as I am to disagree with a fellow kobold(-like thing? Smurfold with jaundice?) I generally see roleplay as being, at its core, "role-based improv". That's why the term "free-form roleplay" exists—it's roleplaying without the rules that accompany a "roleplaying game".
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So, when a term consistently has large amounts of disagreement about what falls within it's definition and what doesn't, would you consider that term well defined? Or poorly defined?
I submit that a term's definition can be entirely clear while the term still generates large amounts of disagreement about what it means.
To phrase it more sourly, lots of people being wrong doesn't mean a term is unclear.
For example, consider the use of "literally" and other qualifiers as intensifiers. The fact that lots of people think "literally" means something similar to "very" does not mean that it's poorly defined.
Doesn't help the current situation much, but still.