I didn't say it doesn't have rules—I said it doesn't have the rules that accompany a "roleplaying game". That's kind of the point of "free-form". Rules for free-form are more "don't be a dick" rules, like "fit the setting" and "no godmodding".
There's going to be disagreement about it, some of which boils down to a gamer (or even regular person) not liking to be told that their version is incorrect.
It seems, if I am reading some of the arguments correctly, revolve mostly around the idea that one is role playing if they engage in minimally interpreting the dice (I hit, 20 damage. I intimidate the guard) or if one is role playing if they are fully engaged (player gives 3 paragraph oratory quotation from Goodfellows to intimidate the guard).
Yes. And any middle ground too. Role playing is what you make of it and telling folks that they are doing is "wrong" just leads to bad feelings.
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 would say it's not well defined.
But your approach doesn't really fix it. Sure, you define roleplaying as "playing a roleplaying game" and it's nice and clearly defined. No disagreement about what that means.People are still going to want to talk about that other thing that we currently describe as "roleplay". So we'll need another term. The exact same argument now shifts to "What does that term mean?" Is it just talking in character? Is it the broader thing I'm talking about? Is it whatever Jiggy's using the term to mean?
The distinction you're drawing is not where the confusion lies, as near as I can tell. There may be confusion over exactly what a "roleplaying heavy campaign" means, but no one really thinks it's redundant.
People say things like:
PIN number
ATM machine
Halls of Valhalla
quite regularly without realizing that they're being redundant. Just because people think they aren't being redundant, doesn't mean they aren't being redundant.
I agree that people will want to talk about many aspects of the game, including how they portray their character. That isn't evidence that "roleplaying" is the best possible term that they could use.
Example: Syrio Forel (A Game of Thrones)
He's a duelist type of character, wielding a rapier, using fluid movement in his fighting style. These aspects are integral to the character as presented, in both the TV show and the book. In a game like Pathfinder, his fighting style would be defined by class features and feats. These special abilities would reinforce who he is and what kind of person he is.
To me, that sounds like good roleplaying. In fact, I bet we could find a few threads where people complain about the bad roleplaying of people who just make death machines, instead of building characters that make sense.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If there is a clear, official definition, can you point to it? Preferably one for it's use as jargon within the hobby, rather than a general English dictionary sense.
I was actually hoping to find that when I brought up the early D&D intros before, but they really don't clearly address it.
That's why I was interested in early citations as well; if the game itself specifies a meaning for "roleplay", then we use that meaning instead of the normal English meaning (just like with "attack" or "check" or "bonus"). But if the game does not provide its own special definition of "roleplay", then we use the normal English meaning.
In other words, for any given term used in the hobby, the default is to use the normal English meaning, and to do otherwise requires that the game give us an alternative.
Therefore, if "roleplay" is to mean something other than playing your role in the normal English sense, the burden of proof is on the proponent of that idea to find us the alternative definition from an authoritative source.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
In this case when someone says "a roleplaying heavy roleplaying game", he means something and we all have at least a vague idea what that is.
Only because of inferences made after hearing lots of remarks about "roleplaying" in a variety of conversational contexts. I did originally think that "a roleplay-heavy roleplaying game" was redundant (sorry for the earlier miscommunication; the idea that maybe people meant "not metagaming" was merely my first theory, my first attempt at making sense of the apparent ridiculousness of the statements).
I've generally regarded "roleplaying" as essentially the opposite of metagaming. Granted I only ever talk to the same people I've been playing with for thirty years, so it doesn't really matter what the terms mean in our case - I'm pretty sure we regularly mangle the usage of 'accepted' definitions.
It seems to me that when deciding what actions our character is going to take we can ascribe two classes of motivation - when we're doing so based on the traits of our imaginary PC's personality, I think we're roleplaying. When we're making our decisions based on other things then I think we're not roleplaying (For example: following an obvious hint from the DM's body language that we should go explore the dockside tavern or something. Burning trolls with fire the first time our PC encounters one, etcetera...)
So what I mean by a game "without a lot of roleplay" is one with the players talking a lot about clearing out the dungeon to not miss any experience points (rather than focussing on the PCs' goal), discussing which path to follow in the story based on "how these adventures usually go" and so forth.
I find it quite hard to roleplay when it comes to NPCs, ironically - it's where I find our group's DMs tend to give the most away (which ones are insignificant, which ones have something to hide, etcetera). I think detection spells and "making a sense motive check" are two areas where it's really easy to be spurred by out-of-character motivations (and hence cause one to stop roleplaying or to roleplay badly, if you prefer).
I don't see a lot of point in segregating the dice rolling bits from the talking bits (or other putative points of distinction between roleplaying and not-roleplaying). Granted I think the "roleplay=talking in character" definition is common on the boards, I just don't think it's terribly useful.
...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 would say it's not well defined.
But your approach doesn't really fix it. Sure, you define roleplaying as "playing a roleplaying game" and it's nice and clearly defined. No disagreement about what that means.People are still going to want to talk about that other thing that we currently describe as "roleplay". So we'll need another term. The exact same argument now shifts to "What does that term mean?" Is it just talking in character? Is it the broader thing I'm talking about? Is it whatever Jiggy's using the term to mean?
The distinction you're drawing is not where the confusion lies, as near as I can tell. There may be confusion over exactly what a "roleplaying heavy campaign" means, but no one really thinks it's redundant.
People say things like:
PIN number
ATM machine
Halls of Valhallaquite regularly without realizing that they're being redundant. Just because people think they aren't being redundant, doesn't mean they aren't being redundant.
I agree that people will want to talk about many aspects of the game, including how they portray their character. That isn't evidence that "roleplaying" is the best possible term that they could use.
Example: Syrio Forel (A Game of Thrones)
He's a duelist type of character, wielding a rapier, using fluid movement in his fighting style. These aspects are integral to the character as presented, in both the TV show and the book. In a game like Pathfinder, his fighting style would be defined by class features and feats. These special abilities would reinforce who he is and what kind of person he is.
To me, that sounds like good roleplaying. In fact, I bet we could find a few threads where people complain about the bad roleplaying of people who just make death
Care to address the other half of my post?
Granted I think the "roleplay=talking in character" definition is common on the boards, I just don't think it's terribly useful.
It's incredibly useful in setting expectations. If I'm recruiting for players and I intend on a heavy in-character dialogue component to the campaign, stating RP required helps prospective players know what the campaign entails.
Much the same if I'm going to play a MMORPG, and I see listings for PVE, PVP, or RP servers. If I decide to join a RP server, I should expect to actually have to role-play.
Granted I think the "roleplay=talking in character" definition is common on the boards, I just don't think it's terribly useful.It's incredibly useful in setting expectations. If I'm recruiting for players and I intend on a heavy in-character dialogue component to the campaign, stating RP required helps prospective players know what the campaign entails.
I don't see any advantage to using the term "roleplay required" over "talking in character required".
One reason I think the former approach is unhelpful is because it's imprecise and used in different ways by different people. I think if you advertised your game as expecting a lot of in-character dialogue - everyone in the "roleplay=talking in character" camp knows what you mean and those of us who think differently also know what you mean. Isn't a less ambiguous term strictly better to one with multiple interpretations?
There's not a lot of value (to me) in identifying the talky bits from the other bits, but I do sometimes want to distinguish between what I consider roleplaying from "the rest" (essentially metagaming).
One reason I think the former approach is unhelpful is because it's imprecise and used in different ways by different people. I think if you advertised your game as expecting a lot of in-character dialogue - everyone in the "roleplay=talking in character" camp knows what you mean and those of us who think differently also know what you mean. Isn't a less ambiguous term strictly better to one with multiple interpretations?
I would still argue that stating role-playing required is well-understood within the hobby.
But let's say people started saying talking in-character required, do you think it's possible that there could be ambiguity there?
Does this mean we have to talk in a fantasy accent? If my character is a snakefolk, do I have to add a bunch of s's when I speak?
Does this mean that talking out of character is prohibited?
I would posit that no term is going to perfectly capture the expectations. So instead of changing to a new term every so often to try to placate newer players, why not stick with the generally understood term?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Granted I think the "roleplay=talking in character" definition is common on the boards, I just don't think it's terribly useful.It's incredibly useful in setting expectations. If I'm recruiting for players and I intend on a heavy in-character dialogue component to the campaign, stating RP required helps prospective players know what the campaign entails.
You're still making assumptions that the people hearing your "RP required" parameter have the same idea of what "roleplay" means as you do. As soon as a listener (or reader, if it's a PbP recruitment) knows what roleplay actually means and doesn't know what you mean by it, then no, it's not "incredibly useful in setting expectations," and in fact works against that goal.
Because its not actually general understood?
And is it not generally understood by people inside the hobby, or new players? It seems like most of the people saying that the term is not clear are actually agreeing that they understand the term now. As in, once they became immersed in the hobby, they became aware of what the term means.
So is the goal here to make it so that people that have never played a TTRPG know what role-playing means?
If so, I think we could probably put together a fairly large list of terms that aren't well known by people outside of the hobby.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
As in, once they became immersed in the hobby, they became aware ofwhat the term meanswhat a lot of folks actually mean when they use the term, despite it not being what the term actually means.
Fixed that for you. There's a difference between "learning what a term means" and "becoming familiar enough with others' misuse of a term to be able to communicate with them in spite of their error".
...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 would say it's not well defined.
But your approach doesn't really fix it. Sure, you define roleplaying as "playing a roleplaying game" and it's nice and clearly defined. No disagreement about what that means.People are still going to want to talk about that other thing that we currently describe as "roleplay". So we'll need another term. The exact same argument now shifts to "What does that term mean?" Is it just talking in character? Is it the broader thing I'm talking about? Is it whatever Jiggy's using the term to mean?
The distinction you're drawing is not where the confusion lies, as near as I can tell. There may be confusion over exactly what a "roleplaying heavy campaign" means, but no one really thinks it's redundant.
People say things like:
PIN number
ATM machine
Halls of Valhallaquite regularly without realizing that they're being redundant. Just because people think they aren't being redundant, doesn't mean they aren't being redundant.
I agree that people will want to talk about many aspects of the game, including how they portray their character. That isn't evidence that "roleplaying" is the best possible term that they could use.
Example: Syrio Forel (A Game of Thrones)
He's a duelist type of character, wielding a rapier, using fluid movement in his fighting style. These aspects are integral to the character as presented, in both the TV show and the book. In a game like Pathfinder, his fighting style would be defined by class features and feats. These special abilities would reinforce who he is and what kind of person he is.
To me, that sounds like good roleplaying. In fact, I bet we could find a few threads where people complain about the
My point is that selecting appropriate feats is part of roleplaying that character. Do you agree or disagree?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because its not actually general understood?Because any replacement term is also not going to be generally understood.
It also really raises the question of "What does roleplaying mean?" even further if you just define it as "playing a roleplaying game".
Self referential definition: See Self referential definition.Is there anything that defines a roleplaying game? Other than "Anything that calls itself one".
It's not self-referential. Roleplaying is defined by how the game defines it. Roleplaying in Pathfinder is different than in Fiasco. There are similarities, but there are differences as well.
Using the football analogy:
Football = everything in the game
Offense = when your team has the ball
Defense = when your team doesn't have the ball
Passing = when the ball is being thrown
Rushing = when the ball is being carried
The primary term refers to everything, then there are smaller terms which only refer to a portion of everything. If we just replaced all these terms with "football", it would be much harder to have a conversation about the game.
Roleplaying = playing a roleplaying game
Dialogue = talking as your character
Character building = creating your character within the rules
Mechanical decision = a decision point created by the rules of the game
Persona = the behavior and attitude of your character
With terms like this, if I were to say something like: This game will require you to develop a complete persona and will be dialogue heavy. You get a pretty clear picture of what I'm talking about.
I've heard people throw around the term "roleplay heavy" quite often, and usually it's pretty much exactly the same as every other game I've ever played. So no, I don't think it's a useful term or that people use it well. I don't think people understand the term in a useful manner or use it in a way that actually conveys information well.
I agree, that there is a problem with "what is a roleplaying game?", it's a debate about many, many games of whether they qualify or not. Just because a new question arises out of a solution doesn't mean the solution is bad. There will always be new issues to deal with, so that isn't an excuse to not address the ones we're currently facing.
I'm thinking that a survey might help determine if the term role-playing is as ambiguous as some are suggesting. I'll try to throw one together in the next day or two. If anyone has suggestions on the wording of the questions, let me know.
As highlighted by the recent change to the word "literally" in the broader culture, just because the masses define a word a certain way does not mean that this is good for our ability to discuss things.
Does any of this really matter?
You know, I think the informal sense of "literally" gets a bad rap. I use it myself sometimes. It's a good way to convey that you're being genuine, even if what you're saying isn't strictly literal.
The real use lies in conveying that you aren't exaggerating, even if you're using a metaphor.
"They literally kicked me out of the club." <-- This statement doesn't literally mean you were kicked, but it does mean you aren't exaggerating when you say you were forced to leave. It adds some good emphasis onto the point of the statement. It also makes it clear you aren't joking.
That's the ideal and clearest use of the informal "literally".
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The real use lies in conveying that you aren't exaggerating, even if you're using a metaphor.
"They literally kicked me out of the club." <-- This statement doesn't literally mean you were kicked, but it does mean you aren't exaggerating when you say you were forced to leave. It adds some good emphasis onto the point of the statement. It also makes it clear you aren't joking.
That's the ideal and clearest use of the informal "literally".
It's one thing if a word picks up a new meaning that's distinct enough from the original that context will almost always make it clear which meaning you're using. It's quite another thing if a word starts getting used in exactly the same contexts as its original meaning but just means something completely different. The former broadens our options for communication, while the latter instead works against good communication.
That's not to say "Bad things happen, accept it." It's more to say that lack of clarity is just a normal aspect, and that the changing meanings of "literally" come with good and bad. Tone, not wording, is the true determiner.
One reason I think the former approach is unhelpful is because it's imprecise and used in different ways by different people. I think if you advertised your game as expecting a lot of in-character dialogue - everyone in the "roleplay=talking in character" camp knows what you mean and those of us who think differently also know what you mean. Isn't a less ambiguous term strictly better to one with multiple interpretations?I would still argue that stating role-playing required is well-understood within the hobby.
But let's say people started saying talking in-character required, do you think it's possible that there could be ambiguity there?
Does this mean we have to talk in a fantasy accent? If my character is a snakefolk, do I have to add a bunch of s's when I speak?
Does this mean that talking out of character is prohibited?
I would posit that no term is going to perfectly capture the expectations. So instead of changing to a new term every so often to try to placate newer players, why not stick with the generally understood term?
Ambiguity and confusion is always possible when discussing nebulous terms. Nonetheless, less ambiguity is desirable (even if it's not zero).
There's no reason to abandon your usage of "roleplaying=talking in character" if you think it's generally understood as that. We just disagree about that general understoodness.
I think someone who always speaks in character but sets fire to the first troll he ever meets isnt roleplaying (unless trolls are well known in the world). Similarly the 'in character talking' paladin who suddenly detects evil on some NPC the party meets (based on some clue from the DM as he read the module) despite never doing it previously.
The real use lies in conveying that you aren't exaggerating, even if you're using a metaphor.
"They literally kicked me out of the club." <-- This statement doesn't literally mean you were kicked, but it does mean you aren't exaggerating when you say you were forced to leave. It adds some good emphasis onto the point of the statement. It also makes it clear you aren't joking.
That's the ideal and clearest use of the informal "literally".
Derail
My point with bringing up "literally" is that this particular evolution did make it harder to use this word as it now requires a greater degree of context to understand what the speaker/writer is saying. The word "literally" now has two distinct and mutually exclusive meanings. This change came about by popular consensus, but has created additional difficulty when using the word. Therefore, a poll about the definition of the word is not exactly the best way to create clarity surrounding that word.
"Roleplaying" in the context of this thread doesn't have mutually exclusive meanings, but rather one meaning is contained within the other, but excludes aspects of the broader term. There are things which are roleplaying, but at the same time aren't roleplaying. That means the word is poorly defined and is too vague in it's meaning.