Roleplay vs Rollplay


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 699 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Before I get started I want to make a something clear.

1. This post is not about which one is better. More on that below. It will be bolded.

2. If this is in the wrong section feel free to flag it and have it moved to another section.

The phrase "if you roleplayed instead of rollplayed" or any similar phrase is offensive, even if you don't mean for it to be, and it should not be used here. It implies a "one correct way to play the game" perspective. Aligning yourself more or less with the rules or being in character is not a better or worse way to play no matter where you fall on the spectrum. It is only a preference.

If you say or imply that if someone were to be less mechanically efficient and/or worry more about the personality aspect of the character they would have more fun as if it is a fact, that is not much better.

In case anyone wants to try the, "but it's not against the rules or guidelines so it is ok" approach.

community guidelines wrote:
There are all kinds of gamers here on paizo.com. Use of derogatory labels for other gamers can be hurtful and isolate others who enjoy different styles of play. You may find yourself in a debate on our messageboards, and disagreements are bound to happen. Focus on challenging the idea, rather than the others in the conversation. Remember that there’s another person on the other side of the screen. Please help us keep it fun!

That is all.

PS: That is not nearly as long as I thought it was going to be.


I am very curious as to:

Why do you find the two terms offensive?

Is there another way to label the two groups that is not offensive to you? (actors vs statisticians) ( most people do not like Monty Hall type vs (I do not remember how the labeled it))

There are many types of game's and gamer's out there and IMHO being able to identify what groups you are in helps improve your enjoyment and possibly those around you also.
For example I have seen the two opposites a roll-player in a role-playing game (which the role-players found offensive) and a role player in a roll-playing game (which the roll players found offensive).

IMHO they are just two styles of playing and should not be offensive in any way.

Sometimes if you simply change to name of something without changing the intent behind the name you have not done anything. ie if you decide not to cuss and instead say bagel dog without changing your thoughts behind cussing eventually bagel dog becomes a cuss word.

MDC


10 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not actually sure what is being discussed? The opening post mentions a lot of what this thread isn't, but not anything on what this thread is.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:
Why do you find the two terms offensive?

Because it's incredibly reductionist and infers I am utterly uninterested or incapable of engaging with the game beyond whichever end of said spectrum I fall? Further, because neither label is particularly useful for discourse (the act of labeling one or more parties in a given debate does not actually further your position, and is incredibly likely to inflame one or more parties emotionally, presenting a barrier to a mutually beneficial decision), their usage is virtually always intended to provoke a party with whom you disagree but lack sufficient evidence to refute the claims of.

For starters.

And that's not even touching the fact that the term 'rollplayer' is almost unilaterally used as a derogatory term or slur.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

...

Is there another way to label the two groups that is not offensive to you? (actors vs statisticians) ( most people do not like Monty Hall type vs (I do not remember how the labeled it))
...

Yeah, "believes in a false dichotomy" vs "is actually reasonable and doesn't toss the entire Pathfinder player base into two mutually exclusive bins to support their warped worldview and justify treating other people in a derogatory manner". Given the typical attitude of "roleplayers-not-rollplayers", I would call this is a far fairer categorization than role vs roll.

To put it bluntly, "roleplay vs rollplay" is bovine manure. There are people who are good at roleplaying, and there are people who are bad at roleplaying. There are also people who have good system knowledge, and people who have bad system knowledge. There are also people everywhere in between. The important thing is that these two traits are not negatively corrolated in any significant manner*. Players who are good at playing a role can also be good at playing the char-op game. Players who are terrible at playing a role can be atrocious at optimizing. Disruptive players can ruin the game by showing up with a combat monster, or they can ruin the game with kenderesque shenanigans. In fact, I have noticed on these boards that a pretty big chunk of the reasonable, decent people on these boards, people who would easily qualify as "good" players, are respectable at the numbers game. On the other hand, the reasonable people who aren't good at the numbers game don't hold their ignorance up as a point of pride. Contrast this to the depressingly prevalant attitude of "I know less than you so I am better than you" common among some of the less reasonable members of the community.

TL;DR: Roleplay vs Rollplay is bull&@%t


Snowblind wrote:
There are people who are good at roleplaying, and there are people who are bad at roleplaying. There are also people who have good system knowledge, and people who have bad system knowledge. There are also people everywhere in between.

And a deficit in either skill set can be overcome as both are learned skills. Unless you (in the general sense, not Snowblind specifically) start to attach negative associations with one set of skills based on a personal bias, at which point you (again, general sense) erect barriers toward your (general) own development as a fan of roleplaying games and, in broader terms, a person.


Saethori wrote:
I'm not actually sure what is being discussed? The opening post mentions a lot of what this thread isn't, but not anything on what this thread is.

Sorry I was not clear.

I was more or less just pointing out that the term is offensive even if it is not intended to be due to it having a negative connotation, and there is more than one correct way to play the game.

That was the basic point.


Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

I am very curious as to:

Why do you find the two terms offensive?

Is there another way to label the two groups that is not offensive to you? (actors vs statisticians) ( most people do not like Monty Hall type vs (I do not remember how the labeled it))

There are many types of game's and gamer's out there and IMHO being able to identify what groups you are in helps improve your enjoyment and possibly those around you also.
For example I have seen the two opposites a roll-player in a role-playing game (which the role-players found offensive) and a role player in a roll-playing game (which the roll players found offensive).

IMHO they are just two styles of playing and should not be offensive in any way.

Sometimes if you simply change to name of something without changing the intent behind the name you have not done anything. ie if you decide not to cuss and instead say bagel dog without changing your thoughts behind cussing eventually bagel dog becomes a cuss word.

MDC

The 'rollplayer" term is often used as an insult, not just as a "this is how they play the game" type of thing. So when people make the comparison it is often from a stance of "you are doing it wrong".

Just to be clear being accused of roleplaying is not what I was saying was a bad thing.


First I will say that I am sorry as I have never head that the term roll-player was offensive in any way.
To me it is simply someone who falls more in the area that looks at abilities over fluff and role-players are more fluff oriented vs abilities.

ie the roll player see's dervish dance great ability and thus creates backstories to allow them to have the ability.
Vs the role-player will take the fluff of dervish dance and incorporate it into all levels of their PC creation to the point of not allowing specific feats, items, abilities, cloths, etc that do not fit the fluff/material presented.

So what term's do you use for the roll player and the role player that I described above?

The terms how I use it has noting to do with system knowledge, or optimization and or ability to play the game and often since I started gaming in 79 have come in handy (even though I did not start using the terms as I do now until around 2000) when describing new systems and games people run and who might like to play in them.

I have seen rules lawyers in both types of gamer's so that term really does not apply to one group or another.

Again do you have better terminology?
Because as I have said many people I know have often found it helpful to describe themselves, others and the types of games they like to play in and run.

I agree that there are very few instances that I have seen in which people are doing it (RP'ing) wrong. I think we all have seen over the years the pitfalls that are advised GM's for making but I still see GM's doing to same things (some people like it and stay with the group and some do not and move on). ie GM PC's, changing the rules on the fly or deliberate misinterpretation of the rules, favoritism at the table, etc.

MDC

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One who is only a roleplayer or a rollplayer is missing half the fun IMO


Categories or Definitions:
I also think it is very helpful to define yourself/your game in some way in RPG terms.
I think often people already do, ie I like to play a fighter, a spell caster and divine PC, etc and I like magic items and/or hate keeping track of every little thing in terms of equipment and as a player I do or do-not mind reading 2-4 pages of stuff during the week for gaming on the weekend.

I have also seen just about any term be used in an offensive way by a person, ie think of someone saying actor in a positive way and actor in a negative way.
I also understand that there are terms that are not polite in anyway and only in very very rare instances can they be used politely.

I use the two terms in question as a divider and then other terms to describe other things about said person, game, game system.

I maybe wrong;
But in this case I just do not see the terms as negative as I and as I said above many others I know have found them useful.
But if a Mod sends me a PM and says do X I will have no problems abiding by that ruling (especially since I was a mod on another companies website for many years).

I can say in my years of gaming I have been called both in a positive light and both in a negative light with some of the comments being very valid points. But at the time that was how I was doing things as a GM, a player or reviewer.

For Example:
I am not that into games that let you play a mushroom PC with a alligator's mouth that can simply fly about with no good reason. But there are groups out there that like this type of thing and have a great time RP'ing with this type of system and rule set.
Which IMHO is great, more power to them but as I said I probably would not have fun with such a system for long term gaming.

MDC


I will say I have witnessed both terms used as weapons against someone whether in this forum or on others. However using them as descriptions in and of itself don't have to be negative its more so how the individual uses them.

The reality of the terms is probably less severe then people would have you believe. I would have to do a large survey of gamers and run some stats to know for sure but my intuition is telling me that most likely its gonna be a standard bell curve with the majority of people (56% ish) falling somewhere in the middle of the 2 terms (roll and role) then eventually you would have outliers that might game actually represent what one might think the two terms represent. that is If you were to force them on a line of one being one extreme and the other being on the other side. Of course it is all together possible that there is no correlation between them at all.

what i'm trying to say I think is that they are made-up construct to try to represent a subsection of people and without actual proofs your really just throwing around non-sense


They are not exclusive terms. Although I have never seen someone that accuses people of roll play over role play ever role play their character.

They are always the most vanilla people that criticize others without ever looking at themselves.


Yeah, it's a Roleplaying Game. So, I'd call those more focused on the roleplaying part "role-players" and those more focused on the game mechanics part would be "gamers". Keep in mind that this game originally developed from the table top strategy games, like Chainmail, so the gamer roots run deep.


Vidmaster7 wrote:

I will say I have witnessed both terms used as weapons against someone whether in this forum or on others. However using them as descriptions in and of itself don't have to be negative its more so how the individual uses them.

The reality of the terms is probably less severe then people would have you believe. I would have to do a large survey of gamers and run some stats to know for sure but my intuition is telling me that most likely its gonna be a standard bell curve with the majority of people (56% ish) falling somewhere in the middle of the 2 terms (roll and role) then eventually you would have outliers that might game actually represent what one might think the two terms represent. that is If you were to force them on a line of one being one extreme and the other being on the other side. Of course it is all together possible that there is no correlation between them at all.

what i'm trying to say I think is that they are made-up construct to try to represent a subsection of people and without actual proofs your really just throwing around non-sense

Stick around here long enough and you will see it. The types of topics you click on will also be a factor. If it is something regarding optimization, character building, and sometimes rules discussions it is more common. For other topics the word does not come up as much.

PS: I agree that the usage of a word matters. What I am saying is that it is often used in a negative way, and when a word is used in a certain way it eventually takes on that definition. That is how words that commonly meant one things many years ago now are used in a different context.


wraithstrike wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

I will say I have witnessed both terms used as weapons against someone whether in this forum or on others. However using them as descriptions in and of itself don't have to be negative its more so how the individual uses them.

The reality of the terms is probably less severe then people would have you believe. I would have to do a large survey of gamers and run some stats to know for sure but my intuition is telling me that most likely its gonna be a standard bell curve with the majority of people (56% ish) falling somewhere in the middle of the 2 terms (roll and role) then eventually you would have outliers that might game actually represent what one might think the two terms represent. that is If you were to force them on a line of one being one extreme and the other being on the other side. Of course it is all together possible that there is no correlation between them at all.

what i'm trying to say I think is that they are made-up construct to try to represent a subsection of people and without actual proofs your really just throwing around non-sense

Stick around here long enough and you will see it. The types of topics you click on will also be a factor. If it is something regarding optimization, character building, and sometimes rules discussions it is more common. For other topics the word does not come up as much.

PS: I agree that the usage of a word matters. What I am saying is that it is often used in a negative way, and when a word is used in a certain way it eventually takes on that definition. That is how words that commonly meant one things many years ago now are used in a different context.

Your right In fact its even quite common for words originally meant as respectful terms to slowly become negative terms If i remember the time right its about 10-20 years on average. I think I saw a good article worth reading that TOZ posted on the subject ill have to find it.

I think a good rule of thumb to go along with this thread is be respectful to other players and understand not everyone plays the game the same.


Snowblind wrote:
The important thing is that these two traits are not negatively corrolated in any significant manner*.

I find them to be negatively correlated - to a small degree. Whether someone considers this significant, it's up to them.

Let's look at a player who is pretty good at both. He wants to join the campaign with a sorcerer and has to decide on a bloodline. From a rollplay perspective he is tempted to take cross-blooded, but as a roleplayer he thinks sticking to one will result in a clearer, more believable character. He is free to compromise - he could make up a solid reason why the character is cross-blooded, or he could pick the most powerful single bloodline he can find. But in both cases he puts one of both things first and the other one second - hence a negative correlation.

I am not going for the title 'nitpicker of the month' here, rather I'd like to see the discussion move beyond binary 'they are totally exclusive' vs. 'there is no contradiction at all'.


SheepishEidolon wrote:


I am not going for the title 'nitpicker of the month' here, rather I'd like to see the discussion move beyond binary 'they are totally exclusive' vs. 'there is no contradiction at all'.

Fair point. I guess I could say that calling someone by a phrase with a negative connotation can be taken as an insult even when none is intended so it is better to not use the word or phrase.

I would prefer to say that the person using the term should be very clear to avoid confusions, but one person's "clear" is another person's "still an insult".


wraithstrike wrote:
SheepishEidolon wrote:


I am not going for the title 'nitpicker of the month' here, rather I'd like to see the discussion move beyond binary 'they are totally exclusive' vs. 'there is no contradiction at all'.

Fair point. I guess I could say that calling someone by a phrase with a negative connotation can be taken as an insult even when none is intended so it is better to not use the word or phrase.

I would prefer to say that the person using the term should be very clear to avoid confusions, but one person's "clear" is another person's "still an insult".

So is there an term covering the same ground, but without the negative connotations?

I do find it a useful distinction to make, even if there isn't an absolute distinction between the two.


First, if I am wrong in my word usage I would like to know it.
Second, I was planing on writing a series of articles and roll-play vs role-play was going to be one of the topics so if it is offensive to many people (and for some reason I have missed this fact) I would again like to know.
Third, I am also a big enough person to admit if I am wrong or doing something that is wrong, I will change my ways. And I am just as likely to make a mistake as another person.
BTW, the moderator note above was not me trying to take any high ground in any way but just a point of reference in that I try and still deal with stuff as if I was a moderator (but am very very glad I am not, because of the crazy stuff that happens from time to time).

In the past I have seen war gamer's vs role-players mentioned but again that was mainly do to the small books released with war games vs guides with role-playing games. (ie I am sure some of you out there used Car Wars or Oger war games and adapted them into RP type games and or settings,. But maybe again I am in a minority here)

SheepishEidolon,
I see it as a scale and not wholly binary in nature. As you said there are lots of factors that can come into play, IMHO, when describing play style. But often I find that having a few simple terms go'es a long way to speed understanding.

Again, I would love some other terms to take into consideration if anyone has some?

MDC


In trying to think of other terms it reminded me of an old experience I had in college.
In a small group we had to give a oral report about something (I do not remember the main detail now) and our topic included a dam. Yes that thing that holds back water. One of our group did not like the term (thought it was cussing and was very religious, which there is nothing wrong with) so we spent 1-3 hours trying to say it a different way. The problem was there was no other way to say it for what it did and it was a major location in the area we were given to describe. So we left it in.
The interesting thing was the next assignment was to describe what discussions we had about what to leave in or out and the fact that one of our group had thought the word was a cuss word brought up a lot of conversation and gave us a very good grade.
MDC


One way of trying to win arguments is by trying to ban the lexicon the disagreeing party has to talk about them. If there was a new term, there would very soon be demands to ban it too. It's the same way out in the real world as on the boards. Instead of concentrating on the actual arguments, people(on all sides) concentrate on things like which words they find 'offensive'.


Oh boy. This topic. Good luck, folks.

Mark: Going strictly on my experiences looking for games on Roll20, it's very common to see game listings that say:

"Looking for ROLE players not ROLL players" when browsing roll20 games. With those caps, I didn't add them, they're often capitalized that way. The message they're sending is, at best, we don't even want to TRY to play with someone who enjoys the mechanics of the game. At worst, it's accompanied with a bunch of other ranting about how awful powergamers are and how they ruin every game.

It's one thing to say "I'm going for a low power level game, please don't minmax" or similar, but the "Looking for ROLEplayers not ROLLplayers" comes off just snotty and meanspirited.

And I mean, and this is an important point, the implication is that since the hobby is "roleplaying games", if you are a "rollplayer" you aren't really a valid member of the hobby. I don't know if that's the message people are trying to send, but with the angry rants that often accompanies such phrases, it seems that way.

Anyway, it's not offensive in a "curse word" sort of way. It's offensive in the sense that it's trying to categorize people in a negative way and used to exclude people for shallow reasons.

(Also, the term rollplayer seems very inaccurate as a way of capturing the problem, as I read it as "people who enjoy rolling dice", which is a core part of the game. who doesn't enjoy rolling dice? Obviously that's not what people are saying, but that's what the shorthand lingo implies, which suggests it's not only meanspirited, it's imprecise language as well.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Rolleplay?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PK the Dragon wrote:

Oh boy. This topic. Good luck, folks.

Mark: Going strictly on my experiences looking for games on Roll20, it's very common to see game listings that say:

"Looking for ROLE players not ROLL players" when browsing roll20 games. With those caps, I didn't add them, they're often capitalized that way. The message they're sending is, at best, we don't even want to TRY to play with someone who enjoys the mechanics of the game. At worst, it's accompanied with a bunch of other ranting about how awful powergamers are and how they ruin every game.

It's one thing to say "I'm going for a low power level game, please don't minmax" or similar, but the "Looking for ROLEplayers not ROLLplayers" comes off just snotty and meanspirited.

And I mean, and this is an important point, the implication is that since the hobby is "roleplaying games", if you are a "rollplayer" you aren't really a valid member of the hobby. I don't know if that's the message people are trying to send, but with the angry rants that often accompanies such phrases, it seems that way.

Anyway, it's not offensive in a "curse word" sort of way. It's offensive in the sense that it's trying to categorize people in a negative way and used to exclude people for shallow reasons.

(Also, the term rollplayer seems very inaccurate as a way of capturing the problem, as I read it as "people who enjoy rolling dice", which is a core part of the game. who doesn't enjoy rolling dice? Obviously that's not what people are saying, but that's what the shorthand lingo implies, which suggests it's not only meanspirited, it's imprecise language as well.)

It may be so and I don't think there's nearly as common a perjorative term, but there's plenty of flack thrown at people not focused on the system mastery end of the game too.

And frankly, when it comes to playing a game together, what's wrong with trying to exclude people who don't enjoy the same play style? Probably should be nicer and more polite about how they phrase it, but the preference remains valid.


Some people play games like this in order to experience a story and have a part in its telling. Some people play games like this in order to play a cooperative tactical combat game. Most people are somewhere in the middle and move towards one end or the other depending on mood.

A lot of games have their communities tilted towards one extreme or the other, but something like Pathfinder is big enough that it requires a certain degree of mutual tolerance for people who are after different things from the game that you are. What the person who just wants to thump orcs and feel heroic wants is not any better or worse than what you or I want. This is a hobby, and the only way you can do it wrong is if you're not having fun.

The problem with "roleplay vs. rollplay" is that it casts the latter as inferior (as "rollplay" is not actually a word with external context, unlike "roleplay".) I would ask, for people who are really into the "game" aspect of these things, what term would be better to use in order to let y'all know that you probably won't enjoy my high-intrigue and very low-combat game I'm planning?


PossibleCabbage wrote:

Some people play games like this in order to experience a story and have a part in its telling. Some people play games like this in order to play a cooperative tactical combat game. Most people are somewhere in the middle and move towards one end or the other depending on mood.

A lot of games have their communities tilted towards one extreme or the other, but something like Pathfinder is big enough that it requires a certain degree of mutual tolerance for people who are after different things from the game that you are. What the person who just wants to thump orcs and feel heroic wants is not any better or worse than what you or I want. This is a hobby, and the only way you can do it wrong is if you're not having fun.

Truth.

But one way you can make it not fun is to stick people whose preferences are too far apart into the same game. Especially if you don't realize they want different things from it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's one thing to suggest a playstyle, make it known that's the way the game is going to be beforehand. Especially on an online game. I have nothing against "looking for people who are willing to not powergame", or something like that.

The phrase "Looking for ROLEplayers not ROLLplayers" doesn't actually accomplish that as well as a fairer statement would, though. It just makes people defensive, while perpetuating a stereotype that roleplayers and powergamers can't get along together, while insulting anyone who likes to roll dice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Roleplay and Rollplay are two very different gaming styles.

As such, it is often important to distinguish between the two when discussing build ideas, character concepts, etc.

A character built for a monty haul, rollplay, dungeon focused game is going to be very different than one built for a character focused, plot driven, roleplay set focused on political intrigue.

If you find it offensive that some people want to clarify the nature of the campaign prior to giving advise, feel free. It is not, however, going to stop others from seeking clarification.

Everything is offensive to somebody .... everything. The only way to ensure nobody is offended is to shut down the forums (e.g. D&D 5.0). A solution neither you nor I desire.


Actually, both styles are Roleplaying. Whether you're roleplaying in terms of nonmechanical interaction, or roleplaying in response to pure mechanics, both styles of play allow for tons of roleplaying opportunity.

The term Rollplay, on the other hand, is mostly used to demean people's playstyles. They shouldn't be treated as if they were the same. They aren't. Maybe at one point they were, IDK, but these days the *only* time the phrase "rollplay" comes up is to exclude people who enjoy game mechanics.

And I'd argue that it's generally a good idea to try not to offend people. I know the "in" thing to do is complain about how everyone is too politically correct or whatever, but if there's a way to say things without being mean about it, you should.

EDIT: See? This discussion brings out even the worst in me, and I knew how volatile the subject is going in. My intention was to provide context as to where the perception of this being a negative term is coming from, nothing more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It also 'just makes sense' not to be overly sensitive and offended at everything…


3 people marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
It also 'just makes sense' not to be overly sensitive and offended at everything…

You could apply that reasoning to every derogatory term ever conceived. I would hope that you don't believe offense towards *insert list of very racist, sexist and generally terrible labels* is just people being "overly sensitive and offended at everything… "

Talking to people in a derogatory manner isn't acceptable, and it also isn't acceptable to deliberately use words that are primarily used in a derogatory manner and then hide behind the defense of "well I might have been using horrible words, but I wasn't trying to be horrible so that makes it OK and I don't have to adjust my behavior in any way, shape or form despite the fact that my horrible words are upsetting people because when people say those words they are usually being horrible".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
It also 'just makes sense' not to be overly sensitive and offended at everything…

You could apply that reasoning to every derogatory term ever conceived. I would hope that you don't believe offense towards *insert list of very racist, sexist and generally terrible labels* is just people being "overly sensitive and offended at everything… "

Talking to people in a derogatory manner isn't acceptable, and it also isn't acceptable to deliberately use words that are primarily used in a derogatory manner and then hide behind the defense of "well I might have been using horrible words, but I wasn't trying to be horrible so that makes it OK and I don't have to adjust my behavior in any way, shape or form despite the fact that my horrible words are upsetting people because when people say those words they are usually being horrible".

Then who gets to define what is acceptable? If I thought someone using the term 'cisgendered' was offensive would that need to stop? Or are only certain people allows to define what is unacceptable? Racial slurs and such are universally recognized as intentionally insulting. Its disingenuous to include them in a category with 'rollplayer '


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Snowlilly wrote:
Everything is offensive to somebody .... everything.

This is just a nihilistic punting on etiquette. We all know that certain things are likely to be offensive to a general audience, and thus we avoid saying those things barring some reason to believe they are contextually okay. No one has a problem with this.

So go about your life attempting to avoid upsetting people for no G-D reason, but if you mess up (and all of us will at some point) and you end up upsetting someone apologize (this costs you nothing) then try to understand that person's perspective. Not only will you acquire information useful in the future to avoid upsetting people for no reason, you will also learn more about how people other than you see the world.

Like now, by virtue of reading this thread you know that "roleplay, not rollplay" is upsetting to some people, and have some insight into why. It costs you literally nothing to stop saying that. If, after having it pointed out "this is upsetting to people" you keep doing it, there's really nothing else to conclude than your intention was in fact malicious.

(There's also no evidence for "everything is offensive to someone". There's considerable evidence for "many things are offensive to someone", but "everything" is a much harder hurdle to clear. I would challenge you to find someone who is offended by the statement "bees generally have six legs.")


"Rollplayer" isn't offensive, just stupid. And there's a big difference between saying that "you should stop using it" and "you should be made to stop using it".

And I always thought Monty Haul referred to a specific kind of DM who is too generous (with loot, and in general leniency) to seriously challenge a party.

The Exchange

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Role vs. Roll

is like

Lawful vs. Good


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:

...

Then who gets to define what is acceptable? If I thought someone using the term 'cisgendered' was offensive would that need to stop? Or are only certain people allows to define what is unacceptable? Racial slurs and such are universally recognized as intentionally insulting. Its disingenuous to include them in a category with 'rollplayer '

As a rough rule of thumb, if the majority of the people in the group you are referring to find your language derogatory, your language should be treated as derogatory, and if you don't have the decency to change your language when you know it is upsetting people and there are alternatives which can express the same ideas then you are probably being an &*%hole.

As an aside, if all of your alternative ways of expressing the same ideas also cause offense, then your language probably isn't the issue. Your ideas are, and complaints about language are others giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you don't really mean all those things you are saying.


And I have somewhat of a problem with the idea of 'ideas' being offensive and not allowed to be expressed. Its only a short road to very bad places with that particular methodology.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
SheepishEidolon wrote:


I am not going for the title 'nitpicker of the month' here, rather I'd like to see the discussion move beyond binary 'they are totally exclusive' vs. 'there is no contradiction at all'.

Fair point. I guess I could say that calling someone by a phrase with a negative connotation can be taken as an insult even when none is intended so it is better to not use the word or phrase.

I would prefer to say that the person using the term should be very clear to avoid confusions, but one person's "clear" is another person's "still an insult".

So is there an term covering the same ground, but without the negative connotations?

I do find it a useful distinction to make, even if there isn't an absolute distinction between the two.

Mechanics [or engineers] and artists.

One works in laws and forces, one works with external appeal. There is nothing pre enting someone from being good [or bad] at both, and sometimes the two skills are. Combined into highly efficient, powerful and beautiful works of art.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
And I have somewhat of a problem with the idea of 'ideas' being offensive and not allowed to be expressed. Its only a short road to very bad places with that particular methodology.

This isn't an issue where the ideas are the problem, the issue is that the manner in which the ideas are expressed is the problem. We can still discuss the idea that "some people want a lot of story, and some people want a lot of game" without using any terms that people in either group find unfair to them (hey, I just did it right there.)

We all understand this already. If someone says "please, don't call me Bill, my name is William" the issue is not "Talking about William" it's "calling him Bill." We can still talk about William.

English is a marvelously adaptable language, and for every given reference there are thousands of different senses to describe those references. Some are going to be contextually better than others. "Macbeth", "The Scottish Play", and "Shakespeare's shortest tragedy" all refer to the same thing. The latter is generally not helpful because most people aren't going to know that bit of trivia offhand so won't know what you're talking about, and whether the 1st or the 2nd is preferable generally depends on whether or not you're in a theater and are superstitious.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've had luck framing the distinction as between 'mechanical exploitation' and 'roleplaying aptitude/desire', and treating the two as uncoupled. Scheme. I use 'exploitation' in the sense of 'using resources,' since I can have an encyclopedic knowledge of game mechanics, but choose not to make a mechanically powerful character.

It's still a vast oversimplification of what are multiple playstyle preferences and variables, but I think it's a slightly more useful way to look at it.

Seen in this context 'roleplaying' seems to normally refer to a high RP desire / low mechanical exploitation game. 'Rollplaying' seems to normally refer to a low RP desire / high mechanical exploitation game. They're just limiting cases though, and it's possible to have games that fit at any position. It should also be noted that I don't necessarily like the terms at all, since I think oversimplifying what is a complex issue, and have too much emotional baggage.

There are, however, distinct (though not opposed) characteristics, and people may want to play a game that's heavy on RP and low on mechanical optimization because it lets them more easily experience roles and storylines that cannot easily be done with highly mechanically optimized characters. Similarly, specific high powered game designs simply cannot be done with non-mechanically optimized characters, and that's perfectly fine.

As a final note, I agree with wraithstrike that the use of these "rollplayer" as a pejorative is unambiguously bad, and should be avoided. That said, I've seen plenty of vitriol flow back the other direction (at "roleplayers") on these forums too. It seems to stem from the strong feeling that you should always build as optimal of a character as you can for your given role, and that people who don't do that are in the wrong. This tendency should also be avoided.

Bottom line: treat others with respect. If you don't know how to, or are unwilling to, don't post.


What h is the other part of the PC problem: in most debates only one side of the argument ever really has their feet held to the fire.


Cheburn wrote:
I've had luck framing the distinction as between 'mechanical exploitation' and 'roleplaying aptitude/desire',

BUZZZZ

I know the general intent of your post is positive, but optimization does not necessitate and rarely includes exploitation.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Cheburn wrote:
I've had luck framing the distinction as between 'mechanical exploitation' and 'roleplaying aptitude/desire',

BUZZZZ

I know the general intent of your post is positive, but optimization does not necessitate and rarely includes exploitation.

If you include Power Attack in a build to increase your damage dealing capacity, you're exploiting a mechanic to gain an advantage for your character, as you should.

Cheburn wrote:
I use 'exploitation' in the sense of 'using resources,' since I can have an encyclopedic knowledge of game mechanics, but choose not to make a mechanically powerful character.

You are not, however, using an exploit, which is more of what you're referring to.

EDIT:

Just to clarify further,

dictionary.com wrote:

exploit

[ik-sploit]
verb (used with object)
1. to utilize, especially for profit; turn to practical account:
to exploit a business opportunity.

2.
to use selfishly for one's own ends:
employers who exploit their workers.

3.
to advance or further through exploitation; promote:
He exploited his new movie through a series of guest appearances.

exploitation
[ek-sploi-tey-shuh n]
noun
1. use or utilization, especially for profit:
the exploitation of newly discovered oil fields.

2.selfish utilization:
He got ahead through the exploitation of his friends.

3. the combined, often varied, use of public-relations and advertising techniques to promote a person, movie, product, etc.
[emphasis added]

I'm using first definition of exploitation (essentially the same as the first definition of exploit) above.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

So is there an term covering the same ground, but without the negative connotations?

I do find it a useful distinction to make, even if there isn't an absolute distinction between the two.

OK, let's say you switch out 'roll-player' for 'optimizer', which is usually less annoying to the people you're labelling.

Even so, by framing the conversation you seem to be saying, "The Stormwind Fallacy is not a fallacy. Everyone is either an optimizer or a role-player. If you've made an optimized character, you're likely to be bad at role-playing. We are having a discussion built around this assumption."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
And I have somewhat of a problem with the idea of 'ideas' being offensive and not allowed to be expressed. Its only a short road to very bad places with that particular methodology.

There was a reason I put the "rough rule of thumb" caveat in there. It probably wouldn't apply to people who are behaving in a manner that is regarded as morally wrong under most reasonable definitions, or people who aren't calling your language offensive because they find your language offensive, but as a part of a deliberate campaign to shut down opinions that differ to their own. Can you come up with any examples that don't fall under these or a similar kind of pathological extreme but you still think should be OK?

"Ideas can be offensive" isn't particularly questionable. I hope you wouldn't disagree that "women should get back to the kitchen", "n&^%%$rs should get back to the plantations" or "Jews should be gassed" are offensive ideas. Coincidentally, "people who are reasonably decent with the mechanics of a game have horrible personality flaws that make them terrible game-ruining players" is also something I hope you would agree is also a pretty offensive idea to anyone who is reasonably decent with game mechanics.

As for not being allowed to express it, well...you can express whatever you like, and if you go too far then I will call you an &*$hole for behaving in a morally wrong manner.

As an aside, I believe that this whole thread would be for the purpose of making people aware that rollplayer is a generally offensive term because of its derogatory nature, and as such should be avoided. It isn't telling people that they can't use the term. It is telling them that they shouldn't use the term because if they willfully offend people by using it then they are probably being &*$holes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
And I have somewhat of a problem with the idea of 'ideas' being offensive and not allowed to be expressed. Its only a short road to very bad places with that particular methodology.

There are absolutely some ideas that are offensive. You are absolutely allowed to express them in public (not necessarily on a privately owned message board though!), but you have to suffer the consequences of those ideas. Which is people calling out that idea as being offensive and yes, sometimes telling you to stop.


Matthew Downie wrote:
thejeff wrote:

So is there an term covering the same ground, but without the negative connotations?

I do find it a useful distinction to make, even if there isn't an absolute distinction between the two.

OK, let's say you switch out 'roll-player' for 'optimizer', which is usually less annoying to the people you're labelling.

Even so, by framing the conversation you seem to be saying, "The Stormwind Fallacy is not a fallacy. Everyone is either an optimizer or a role-player. If you've made an optimized character, you're likely to be bad at role-playing. We are having a discussion built around this assumption."

So, is there any non-offensive way of stating my preference for games with low rollplay and high roleplay or is the mere idea that I prefer one to the other in itself offensive?

I should just optimize more, for example, even if I don't enjoy it.


Matthew Downie wrote:
thejeff wrote:

So is there an term covering the same ground, but without the negative connotations?

I do find it a useful distinction to make, even if there isn't an absolute distinction between the two.

OK, let's say you switch out 'roll-player' for 'optimizer', which is usually less annoying to the people you're labelling.

Even so, by framing the conversation you seem to be saying, "The Stormwind Fallacy is not a fallacy. Everyone is either an optimizer or a role-player. If you've made an optimized character, you're likely to be bad at role-playing. We are having a discussion built around this assumption."

Stormwind Fallacy aside, the very term "optimizer" and its meaning are the subjects of countless debates and arguments on this forum.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
thejeff wrote:

So is there an term covering the same ground, but without the negative connotations?

I do find it a useful distinction to make, even if there isn't an absolute distinction between the two.

OK, let's say you switch out 'roll-player' for 'optimizer', which is usually less annoying to the people you're labelling.

Even so, by framing the conversation you seem to be saying, "The Stormwind Fallacy is not a fallacy. Everyone is either an optimizer or a role-player. If you've made an optimized character, you're likely to be bad at role-playing. We are having a discussion built around this assumption."

So, is there any non-offensive way of stating my preference for games with low rollplay and high roleplay or is the mere idea that I prefer one to the other in itself offensive?

I should just optimize more, for example, even if I don't enjoy it.

So you prefer a more story driven and less mechanic heavy game? Or perhaps a more immersive and rules-lite experience? Sounds valid and acceptable to me, that would tell me whether or not you might be a good fit for my table.

1 to 50 of 699 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Roleplay vs Rollplay All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.