Roleplay vs Rollplay


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

451 to 500 of 699 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>

master_marshmallow wrote:
Alex Smith 908 wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

GNS theory, it matters.

I'd see a 'roll player' defined as someone who focuses too much/exclusively on the G (also known as a power gamer, as a derogative).

In this case, the 'role player' (defined antithetically to the derogative 'roll player') would be focused too much/exclusively on the N.

Hyperbolically, these extremes represent the two sides of the Stormwind Fallacy.

Except they wouldn't be called a roleplayer as that is the broad group that, carry with me here includes literally everyone who plays tabletop ROLEPLAYING games. If you want to point out that they focus exclusively on narrative call them something else. For instance actors, closet otherkin. Anything else is the same no-true scotsman argument used by idiots on twitter to define what a "gamer" is.
In this context I define 'role player' as the antithesis of 'roll player' to avoid that confusion.

The problem is when people don't define the two terms as being diametrically opposed. As being Good v Lawful rather than Good v Evil, as it were.


thejeff wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

You can be one or the other, or both.

I play with a guy who enjoys the mechanics of building characters. He rarely actually contributes to roleplay in the game, or give anything in detail about a character background. It is what it is, but his character still contributes.
In the same group, we had a gal who was the polar opposite. She would come up with backstories, and ask her husband to create the mechanics for her based on the backstory (which class made the most sense, could do what she had in mind, etc.) She didn't like combat much, but always roleplayed the hell out of her characters.
The other three folks in my group, including myself, do both in varying degrees.

Are any of us less gamers than the other? Are any of us "better" at gaming? Being geeks?

Are broad brush terms stupid? Yes.

No, but there are groups that your mechanics guy would have a lot more fun in than your polar opposite gal. And ones she would enjoy much more than he would. And probably some in which both would be frustrated.

Whether those particular terms are clearly defined and unbiased enough to use to talk about it or not, the concepts are useful in figuring out what we each want from a game.

Note: I again am not saying that being better at one makes you worse at the other. I'm saying it's possible to prefer/be better at one than the other and that this is useful information.

I suppose they may/might. However, all of us playing together consistently for over 18 years means what, then? Are we "settling" for less fun?


Aranna wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
Aranna wrote:

It is frustrating when I enjoy this amazing game filled with all manner of amazing people and all those amazing people want to do it attack each other...

~sigh~

All they have to do is stop using nebulous terms that don't actually mean anything.

It isn't the term that is attacking, it's the person who wants to insult you. If by some miracle you stop people from using that term then they will insult you with the next term. The cleverest way I have seen to stop this is to reverse it and take the insult as a compliment. If enough people start using it as a good thing then the insulting people become toothless. Just look at the term "geek" which was used as an insult till people took the insult and turned it into a compliment. Now if people want to insult you with that it is THEY who have to find a new insulting term and that is harder to do with any traction.

Why is it the responsibility of the person being insulted to fix things?

If you want to use the word without unwanted context, you should go talk to the people doing the insulting. They are the ones who are adding the context you don't like, not those of us on the receiving end.

I would love to talk angry at the insulters, point me at one.

Simple answer who wants it fixed? The insulter or the insulted?

I have no interest in "fixing" the term.

I think it's a poor attempt to be glib and has commonly been used as an insult, including having been directed at me as an insult. I want nothing to do with the word. You're the one trying to salvage it and asking me to ignore the fact that it's been directed at me as an insult.

I've told you how the word impacts me. Either you'll respect that, or you won't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So If I'm a roleplayer and you said, "Looking for roleplayers not ROLLPLAYERS" but I happen to do X that you feel makes a rollplayer and thus your use was meaningless as it doesn't actually mean anything specific.

Rollplay has been used for Building a character, how optimized your character is, how descriptive you are about your actions, that you don't talk in character, if you wouldn't take a useless feat because it's useless. And I'm sure there are more. So saying no Rollplayers could mean low optimization to the creator of the game while no rollplayers means they want people that are talking in character. Thus I apply and get called a filthy rollplayer trying to sneak into the game because I optimized my character.


Kryzbyn wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

You can be one or the other, or both.

I play with a guy who enjoys the mechanics of building characters. He rarely actually contributes to roleplay in the game, or give anything in detail about a character background. It is what it is, but his character still contributes.
In the same group, we had a gal who was the polar opposite. She would come up with backstories, and ask her husband to create the mechanics for her based on the backstory (which class made the most sense, could do what she had in mind, etc.) She didn't like combat much, but always roleplayed the hell out of her characters.
The other three folks in my group, including myself, do both in varying degrees.

Are any of us less gamers than the other? Are any of us "better" at gaming? Being geeks?

Are broad brush terms stupid? Yes.

No, but there are groups that your mechanics guy would have a lot more fun in than your polar opposite gal. And ones she would enjoy much more than he would. And probably some in which both would be frustrated.

Whether those particular terms are clearly defined and unbiased enough to use to talk about it or not, the concepts are useful in figuring out what we each want from a game.

Note: I again am not saying that being better at one makes you worse at the other. I'm saying it's possible to prefer/be better at one than the other and that this is useful information.

I suppose they may/might. However, all of us playing together consistently for over 18 years means what, then? Are we "settling" for less fun?

No. Maybe you've got a middle of the road kind of group that both can fit into well enough, but Alice here runs a meatgrinder of a tactical with minimal attention to anything but combat and Bob runs a deep introspective game where you barely break out the dice most sessions and even then it's probably for social tests. Meanwhile Chris runs a beer and pretzels game that's mostly about jokes and hacking through weak monsters.

Any of those games could be great for the right players, but they'd want to pick the right one.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

You can be one or the other, or both.

I play with a guy who enjoys the mechanics of building characters. He rarely actually contributes to roleplay in the game, or give anything in detail about a character background. It is what it is, but his character still contributes.
In the same group, we had a gal who was the polar opposite. She would come up with backstories, and ask her husband to create the mechanics for her based on the backstory (which class made the most sense, could do what she had in mind, etc.) She didn't like combat much, but always roleplayed the hell out of her characters.
The other three folks in my group, including myself, do both in varying degrees.

Are any of us less gamers than the other? Are any of us "better" at gaming? Being geeks?

Are broad brush terms stupid? Yes.

No, but there are groups that your mechanics guy would have a lot more fun in than your polar opposite gal. And ones she would enjoy much more than he would. And probably some in which both would be frustrated.

Whether those particular terms are clearly defined and unbiased enough to use to talk about it or not, the concepts are useful in figuring out what we each want from a game.

Note: I again am not saying that being better at one makes you worse at the other. I'm saying it's possible to prefer/be better at one than the other and that this is useful information.

I suppose they may/might. However, all of us playing together consistently for over 18 years means what, then? Are we "settling" for less fun?
No. Maybe you've got a middle of the road kind of group that both can fit into well enough, but Alice here runs a meatgrinder of a tactical with minimal attention to anything but combat and Bob runs a deep introspective game where you barely break out the dice most sessions and even then it's probably for social tests. Meanwhile Chris runs a beer and pretzels game that's mostly about jokes and hacking through weak...

So they should use helpful terms to describe their game, like "meat grinder" or "intrigue-focused" rather than useless terms like rollplay.


Ventnor wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

You can be one or the other, or both.

I play with a guy who enjoys the mechanics of building characters. He rarely actually contributes to roleplay in the game, or give anything in detail about a character background. It is what it is, but his character still contributes.
In the same group, we had a gal who was the polar opposite. She would come up with backstories, and ask her husband to create the mechanics for her based on the backstory (which class made the most sense, could do what she had in mind, etc.) She didn't like combat much, but always roleplayed the hell out of her characters.
The other three folks in my group, including myself, do both in varying degrees.

Are any of us less gamers than the other? Are any of us "better" at gaming? Being geeks?

Are broad brush terms stupid? Yes.

No, but there are groups that your mechanics guy would have a lot more fun in than your polar opposite gal. And ones she would enjoy much more than he would. And probably some in which both would be frustrated.

Whether those particular terms are clearly defined and unbiased enough to use to talk about it or not, the concepts are useful in figuring out what we each want from a game.

Note: I again am not saying that being better at one makes you worse at the other. I'm saying it's possible to prefer/be better at one than the other and that this is useful information.

I suppose they may/might. However, all of us playing together consistently for over 18 years means what, then? Are we "settling" for less fun?
No. Maybe you've got a middle of the road kind of group that both can fit into well enough, but Alice here runs a meatgrinder of a tactical with minimal attention to anything but combat and Bob runs a deep introspective game where you barely break out the dice most sessions and even then it's probably for social tests. Meanwhile Chris runs a beer and pretzels game that's mostly about jokes and
...

Sounds like that 'mode of play' discussion I had upthread.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Bandw2 wrote:
Ulyssesjn wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ulyssesjn wrote:


Plus, the way you lay out time wise looks pretty spectrumy to me. You seem to be describing points on a spectrum.

No. I do not.

It is not "how you see it"
It is not "a certain way of looking at it"

Dang, you're an intense individual.

What I see is on one end is a "person who dedicates all their time/energy to roleplay none to mechanics. On the other end, person who dedicates all their time/energy to game mechanics none to roleplay. And infinite number of points in between.

You can describe that with axes also.

Same result. Some people like some things, others don't.

here's the point.

the two are as correlated to each other as how much money i spend on toilet paper and how much money i spend on gas.

sure, I can make a graph showing that people have varrying amount of gas and toilet paper spendage, but in the end, it's going to mostly be a vague blob of dots. hell, there might even be some patterns in there, like richer people spend more on gas and toilet paper, etc, but all in all these 2 values aren't directly related to each other.

quoting myself for posterity.


Ventnor wrote:
So they should use helpful terms to describe their game, like "meat grinder" or "intrigue-focused" rather than useless terms like rollplay.

Yeah, I get it. We're having two discussions here, which is part of the problem. One is "the terms are insulting (or at least rollplay is) and not opposed because you can be both". The other is "the terms aren't clearly defined enough to be useful".

I specifically said, hoping to avoid switching to the other argument in mid-discussion: "Whether those particular terms are clearly defined and unbiased enough to use to talk about it or not, the concepts are useful in figuring out what we each want from a game."


thejeff wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
So they should use helpful terms to describe their game, like "meat grinder" or "intrigue-focused" rather than useless terms like rollplay.

Yeah, I get it. We're having two discussions here, which is part of the problem. One is "the terms are insulting (or at least rollplay is) and not opposed because you can be both". The other is "the terms aren't clearly defined enough to be useful".

I specifically said, hoping to avoid switching to the other argument in mid-discussion: "Whether those particular terms are clearly defined and unbiased enough to use to talk about it or not, the concepts are useful in figuring out what we each want from a game."

My response is that those terms are not useful for figuring out what you want from a game since they are so nebulous, on top of the fact that you're insulting some players from the word go.


Ventnor wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
So they should use helpful terms to describe their game, like "meat grinder" or "intrigue-focused" rather than useless terms like rollplay.

Yeah, I get it. We're having two discussions here, which is part of the problem. One is "the terms are insulting (or at least rollplay is) and not opposed because you can be both". The other is "the terms aren't clearly defined enough to be useful".

I specifically said, hoping to avoid switching to the other argument in mid-discussion: "Whether those particular terms are clearly defined and unbiased enough to use to talk about it or not, the concepts are useful in figuring out what we each want from a game."

My response is that those terms are not useful for figuring out what you want from a game since they are so nebulous, on top of the fact that you're insulting some players from the word go.

Which is why I didn't use them!


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Aranna wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
Aranna wrote:

It is frustrating when I enjoy this amazing game filled with all manner of amazing people and all those amazing people want to do it attack each other...

~sigh~

All they have to do is stop using nebulous terms that don't actually mean anything.

It isn't the term that is attacking, it's the person who wants to insult you. If by some miracle you stop people from using that term then they will insult you with the next term. The cleverest way I have seen to stop this is to reverse it and take the insult as a compliment. If enough people start using it as a good thing then the insulting people become toothless. Just look at the term "geek" which was used as an insult till people took the insult and turned it into a compliment. Now if people want to insult you with that it is THEY who have to find a new insulting term and that is harder to do with any traction.

this isn't exactly the case, use of a derogatory term even not as an insult, shows to the person you're talking to that you believe the term's meanings are correct(the person's you're talking to's meaning not yours, you got to understand this, when talking no one uses your definition but yourself). Reversing something and using it as a compliment is a mental defense mechanism, it's generally a "let yourself go" moment, as the ego tries to make the pain of the social pressure worth while. If people are going to call you that thing, then you can't get worse by actually doing the things that word does.

If people keep calling you an addict because you're taking some prescription painkillers, you're much more likely to actually justify yourself in trying to gain illicit painkillers because you no longer have to care about "what will others say?".

so once again, it's actually quite a bad mental defense mechanism, as most of them are.

literally the healthiest thing a person can do in these situations is fight against the word, even if it looks bad socially the person becomes stronger and more confident and does not feel labeled by others. note: violence is never the answer, but standing up against someone doesn't mean violence.

besides this you're basically asking others to not mind the word, let them use it, and change nothing, basically to surrender.

I could go more into how the start of the issue always starts with who uses the term and thus responsibility lies there to fix the problem, but I've spoken enough already I think for one post.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
To me, even leaving aside the negative connotations, saying "I'm a roleplayer, not a rollplayer!" sounds like "I'm left handed, not a redhead!".

Ugh, these red-haired players from MMO land are ruining the hobby for blue-eyed players!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I blame video games!


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

screw it, i'll just go about it after reading more of aranna's posts.

so, when people use these terms, it's because they're faced with something they do not want to digest mentally. Meaning they have no desire to try to understand something and work it into their world view. When this happens the person will "throw up" back at what they decided not to digest to maintain their ego's stability and world view. This most often comes in the form of labels, as they can be neatly packaged and don't require you to really digest what that thing is.

Now, this behavior doesn't always come from hate, it often can simply be seen as too resource intensive to really go through(take to long to get to know someone, i'm busy right now, i'm only going to be here for 3 more days) and so instead of trying to understand the experience before them they label it "throw up" at it and move on, sometimes more politely than others.

and that's the point, don't you want to be polite as much as possible when doing this? in such cases the best thing you can do is simply label them as "unknown" or "something I can look into later" or "not my thing but obviously not bad". This is better than making specific judgement about items or people when you haven't really taken the time to understand them.

to give a perfectly mundane example.

you're in a particularly slow elevator ride, going to the 3rd floor of a 10 story building, someone else get's in with you, and starts trying to chat small talk just as the elevator reaches the 2nd floor, apparently they're heading for the 10th floor. You cut him short and say "sorry, this is my stop" and get off. you could have ignored him but you didn't. you could have labeled him simply as "not worth your time", you could have even been rude and simply told him that.

likewise in these situations, it's not best to describe people after getting a little insight into their playstyle with blanket terms. realize that labeling them as "unknown" is better, you only know exactly what you've already seen. Even if you do accidentally label someone in your head noodle, it's best not to tell that person you've labeled them. there's no reason they need to know that, there's also no reason to use these labels when talking to other people about the labeled, don't spread potential misinformation, it's not nice.

also if you're like "ah, but see i've played with him a bunch and know how he plays, he's definitely a rollplayer". Well than either 1 of 2 things happened. more likely, you've not actually ever chosen to understand his play style, labeled it, and then simply assumed that that was how his play style functioned. or 2, for whatever reason, you've decided to make him the prime definition of what a rollplayer is in your head, when calling someone else a rollplayer you're subconsciously comparing them to him, which is neeto, but I bet his definition of rollplaying is different than yours and will get confused or insulted if you called him one.

name of the game, try not to label people with single words, it's not nice, you dingus.


I guess my problem is the "must/should play in a game that 100% matches your play style to have the maximum fun" maxim. This what I called into question.
As explained, my group covers the wide spectrum on the scale from role play focus to mechanical focus, and I believe all of us have had enough fun to stick together for almost 2 decades. So obviously there is another factor involved here with group TTRPG play, one apparently important enough to apparently override the need to match play styles like for like.
I'd also venture to guess that play style compatibility is just not that damn important in the long run. Who knows?


master_marshmallow wrote:
In this context I define 'role player' as the antithesis of 'roll player' to avoid that confusion.

This exclusionary definition by design requires rollplayer to be an insult.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
Alex Smith 908 wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

GNS theory, it matters.

I'd see a 'roll player' defined as someone who focuses too much/exclusively on the G (also known as a power gamer, as a derogative).

In this case, the 'role player' (defined antithetically to the derogative 'roll player') would be focused too much/exclusively on the N.

Hyperbolically, these extremes represent the two sides of the Stormwind Fallacy.

Except they wouldn't be called a roleplayer as that is the broad group that, carry with me here includes literally everyone who plays tabletop ROLEPLAYING games. If you want to point out that they focus exclusively on narrative call them something else. For instance actors, closet otherkin. Anything else is the same no-true scotsman argument used by idiots on twitter to define what a "gamer" is.
In this context I define 'role player' as the antithesis of 'roll player' to avoid that confusion.

But what if we're both?

What if story is 100% as important to us as Mechanics?

What about those of us who create Mechanics first, but write MORE and BETTER story than those self-proclaimed 'Role-players'?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kullen wrote:
I blame video games!

Don't forget about board games! Or sitcoms. Or animated films. D&D was so much better before any of those things were invented.


Sarcasm Dragon wrote:
Kullen wrote:
I blame video games!
Don't forget about board games! Or sitcoms. Or animated films. D&D was so much better before any of those things were invented.

Or novels.


Or moving pictures.


Sarcasm Elemental wrote:
Or moving pictures.

Or still pictures!


Talonhawke wrote:
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

Chess Pwn,

I have to disagree with you in that I know quite a few people that find it help to to put either of the two terms in add's seeking new players. (both in person (home,game store, other) and online.

After talking to them about it our experience has been that most negative reactions are do to the person not being allowed to play and or being asked to leave the game. Which can pose a problem and is why such descriptive language was included in the game description to begin with.

As I said I appreciate this topic and I am being more selective in where i use the term (and try and explain it before hand) but even then in the last few days since this topic started the people that I would expect to have problems with the term have done so because it defines they play style to a T and if a new term was coined then they would have a problem with that term also.
I do understand that not everyone's experiences will be or are the same but I know that I try and get many different opinions and ranges of experience when I seek out information and I thank you and the others who have such feeling's for your's.
MDC

The problem is who is defining those terms, and how are they defining them. If I am both am i allowed or banned? What level of optimization is the cutoff before I am too Rollplay and not enough Roleplay?

I think this is where how I have defined the term and you are different, ie my roll-player are those who ignore fluff ( example:ignore fluff in traits and just go by benefits it gives you) vs role-players decide to take things because they are from specific areas of the world or take things because all people of X class should have Z ability/trait/feat/etc.

I agree some people use it as hyper optimizer but I have seen that in both groups.

As to who decides on who gets to play that it up to the GM and or group in my experience. And if you are in doubt just ask the person or persons.
(So if I really wanted tom play in a game I would send the person an text/email/call and find out just what they considered fair play in their game and be prepared with questions such as "If I do X is that ok?" or "If I play Y is that ok?" or "Can you provide me with some examples of what you consider to much roll/power/"term" is inappropriate for your game? Can you provide me with examples of what is appropriate role/acting/backstory/etc in your game?"
I agree it is a bummer to be denied a chance to play because of some situation/condition/play style/etc but more often than not I have seen it cause huge problems also with people from the extremes get together and try and have fun.

Unfortunately I have found that getting questions like those above out of the way early is very important in some games/systems vs others and can prevent players and GM's from poor experiences when there is a possibility (if one is available, in person, online, organized play, etc) that they could have a much better experience elsewhere.

Is that what you are looking for?

MDC


Chess Pwn wrote:

So If I'm a roleplayer and you said, "Looking for roleplayers not ROLLPLAYERS" but I happen to do X that you feel makes a rollplayer and thus your use was meaningless as it doesn't actually mean anything specific.

Rollplay has been used for Building a character, how optimized your character is, how descriptive you are about your actions, that you don't talk in character, if you wouldn't take a useless feat because it's useless. And I'm sure there are more. So saying no Rollplayers could mean low optimization to the creator of the game while no rollplayers means they want people that are talking in character. Thus I apply and get called a filthy rollplayer trying to sneak into the game because I optimized my character.

I am sorry you have been denied a game because of your play style.

When talking to a few others about this issue one of the most common comments by one group was "taking useless ability/talent/traint/feat/etc because of X, Y or Z." the other group did not have as much a problem with it if it added some RP purpose (but some still did).

I also cannot speak for every person out there and I am sure some people have used the term and meant it in the most offensive way possible.
That is why I as a Gm and player try and find out as much as possible about the game and play style before I begin as some system's I play/use PC creation is a hour plus long process ( I have also played in systems in which the game designers want you to take 3-6 hours designing your PC and from my experience most people take 20 min to 1 hour).

MDC


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

Chess Pwn,

I have to disagree with you in that I know quite a few people that find it help to to put either of the two terms in add's seeking new players. (both in person (home,game store, other) and online.

After talking to them about it our experience has been that most negative reactions are do to the person not being allowed to play and or being asked to leave the game. Which can pose a problem and is why such descriptive language was included in the game description to begin with.

As I said I appreciate this topic and I am being more selective in where i use the term (and try and explain it before hand) but even then in the last few days since this topic started the people that I would expect to have problems with the term have done so because it defines they play style to a T and if a new term was coined then they would have a problem with that term also.
I do understand that not everyone's experiences will be or are the same but I know that I try and get many different opinions and ranges of experience when I seek out information and I thank you and the others who have such feeling's for your's.
MDC

The problem is who is defining those terms, and how are they defining them. If I am both am i allowed or banned? What level of optimization is the cutoff before I am too Rollplay and not enough Roleplay?
I think this is where how I have defined the term and you are different, ie my roll-player are those who ignore fluff ( example:ignore fluff in traits and just go by benefits it gives you)

Fluff was made to be ignored.

Some of the best role-players out there create THEIR OWN fluff to align with their mechanics, crafting a unique story via their character.


Kryzbyn wrote:

I guess my problem is the "must/should play in a game that 100% matches your play style to have the maximum fun" maxim. This what I called into question.

As explained, my group covers the wide spectrum on the scale from role play focus to mechanical focus, and I believe all of us have had enough fun to stick together for almost 2 decades. So obviously there is another factor involved here with group TTRPG play, one apparently important enough to apparently override the need to match play styles like for like.
I'd also venture to guess that play style compatibility is just not that damn important in the long run. Who knows?

Or it's really only with extremes that it matters? And probably more when the game itself leans far one way, rather than just having a couple of people from each end in it.

All I can really say is that I know what I prefer - what kind of mix and how I'm willing to push the boundaries on that. And I know what I don't find as much fun.

I also know that some other gamers really enjoy things that I slog through or avoid entirely. And some of those friends aren't at all interested in some games I've really liked. But there are also plenty of ways we can happily play together, as long as we avoid those extremes.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Alex Smith 908 wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

GNS theory, it matters.

I'd see a 'roll player' defined as someone who focuses too much/exclusively on the G (also known as a power gamer, as a derogative).

In this case, the 'role player' (defined antithetically to the derogative 'roll player') would be focused too much/exclusively on the N.

Hyperbolically, these extremes represent the two sides of the Stormwind Fallacy.

Except they wouldn't be called a roleplayer as that is the broad group that, carry with me here includes literally everyone who plays tabletop ROLEPLAYING games. If you want to point out that they focus exclusively on narrative call them something else. For instance actors, closet otherkin. Anything else is the same no-true scotsman argument used by idiots on twitter to define what a "gamer" is.
In this context I define 'role player' as the antithesis of 'roll player' to avoid that confusion.

But what if we're both?

What if story is 100% as important to us as Mechanics?

What about those of us who create Mechanics first, but write MORE and BETTER story than those self-proclaimed 'Role-players'?

There's nothing wrong with that, in fact ideally you and the others at the table should decide when times for all three matter sometimes independently of each other and sometimes as derivatives of each other.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Sarcasm Dragon wrote:
Kullen wrote:
I blame video games!
Don't forget about board games! Or sitcoms. Or animated films. D&D was so much better before any of those things were invented.
Or novels.

I didn't mention novels because I've never (to my recollection) seen anyone claim that novels are what destroyed TTRPGs. Sadly, I have seen, at one time or another, people honestly assert that D&D was way better before it was ruined by either board games, animated film, and/or sitcoms. And all on this website.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
137ben wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Sarcasm Dragon wrote:
Kullen wrote:
I blame video games!
Don't forget about board games! Or sitcoms. Or animated films. D&D was so much better before any of those things were invented.
Or novels.
I didn't mention novels because I've never (to my recollection) seen anyone claim that novels are what destroyed TTRPGs. Sadly, I have seen, at one time or another, people honestly assert that D&D was way better before it was ruined by either board games, animated film, and/or sitcoms. And all on this website.

Juvenoia


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
Aranna wrote:
It isn't the term that is attacking, it's the person who wants to insult you. If by some miracle you stop people from using that term then they will insult you with the next term. The cleverest way I have seen to stop this is to reverse it and take the insult as a compliment. If enough people start using it as a good thing then the insulting people become toothless. Just look at the term "geek" which was used as an insult till people took the insult and turned it into a compliment. Now if people want to insult you with that it is THEY who have to find a new insulting term and that is harder to do with any traction.

this isn't exactly the case, use of a derogatory term even not as an insult, shows to the person you're talking to that you believe the term's meanings are correct(the person's you're talking to's meaning not yours, you got to understand this, when talking no one uses your definition but yourself). Reversing something and using it as a compliment is a mental defense mechanism, it's generally a "let yourself go" moment, as the ego tries to make the pain of the social pressure worth while. If people are going to call you that thing, then you can't get worse by actually doing the things that word does.

If people keep calling you an addict because you're taking some prescription painkillers, you're much more likely to actually justify yourself in trying to gain illicit painkillers because you no longer have to care about "what will others say?".

so once again, it's actually quite a bad mental defense mechanism, as most of them are.

literally the healthiest thing a person can do in these situations is fight against the word, even if it looks bad socially the person becomes stronger and more confident and does not feel labeled by others. note: violence is never the answer, but standing up against someone doesn't mean violence.

besides this you're basically asking others to not mind the word, let them use it, and change nothing, basically to surrender.

I could go more into how the start of the issue always starts with who uses the term and thus responsibility lies there to fix the problem, but I've spoken enough already I think for one post.

I have to disagree. The healthiest thing is NOT to fight a word. Fighting your whole life over a label that the people who want to hurt you apply to you. The healthiest thing is NOT to be bothered by it. Fighting fills you with negative feelings. Negative feelings damage YOU not the people you are feeling negative about OR the feelings of a word which can't feel at all. You create a pit of evil inside you and let it shape you into becoming the very thing those who want to hurt you want.

Ok I am going to try stepping into your shoes for a moment:

So how do you avoid being bothered by a word you might ask? There are a number of ways; One which I already discussed is to change a bad word into a compliment... yeah if it is to have full impact you will need to start a movement toward doing it (like I am trying). But I want a quick fix you might say! Then try going meta and realizing a label can only apply to you if you let it. If you are set on accepting the word is BAD then stop self applying the label. "That group doesn't want roll players. Good thing I am not a roll player!" you say to yourself "I actually VALUE my character interaction as much as my mechanical challenges SO clearly I can't be a roll player as they define it." BUT someone called you one? So what? They clearly don't know you or they wouldn't have right? And if YOU see the word as bad and these people who are, without even knowing you, mislabeling you with this word they seem to want to use as if it's bad. Then really WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO BE FRIENDS WITH SUCH PEOPLE?! Find a group that doesn't mislabel people they don't know, you will be much better off and won't need to "fight a word". You can fill your heart with positive things like friendship instead.

~sigh~
Ok back to being me and seeing the word as a compliment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

by healthiest i'm assuming you mean stay a part of society, well, guess what, you can either bottle up your emotions AKA ignore the problem, or fight the problem and fix it AKA deal with it.

to counter" ignoring it isn't bottling it up", yeah it is, humans by nature do not "drop things" this is evident from every time you remember something from over a decade ago. If you want a good read on why ignoring the term doesn't fix things, read >Invisible Man<.

ignoring someone trying to insult you, is never truly by yourself witnessed as a victory. most instances of this are actually something called >Reaction Formation<, in which you're not truly not letting it bother you, but simply act that way to make it appear so. enough where you yourself believe the lie.

this mental defense leads you into a lie and is unhealthy to keep operating, especially since it can set the person up for worse behavior and them going to extra lengths to maintain the lie for themselves.

like seriously, this kind of defense pulls the person into a shell and farther away from reality. that's why this is unhealthy, it makes the person more likely to act on this bubble they created rather than what's really before them.

also, stop stepping into people's shoes. I'm just the kind of guy who simply really doesn't like prejudicial actions. I'm a Caucasian male, but I remember one of my friends made fun a Vietnamese Coworker for the way he talked, man did I tell him off.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
...

Are there words you don't use because they are offensive? By that, I mean are there ANY words you don't use because of the connotations that they carry?


Irontruth wrote:
Aranna wrote:
...

Are there words you don't use because they are offensive? By that, I mean are there ANY words you don't use because of the connotations that they carry?

Of course, there are a great many words whose core meaning IS offensive. There isn't any other reason to use such words other than as an offensive statement. Rollplayer isn't such a word. Its core meaning is descriptive and rather intuitive. Just look at it. At a glance you can tell this is referring to a mechanically oriented play style. The fact that no one seems to agree on where the boundary is separating a mechanical approach from a non mechanical one isn't relevant to its usefulness. In fact you will find ALL gaming terms have such a nebulous boundary.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If they don't know you personally Bandw2, then don't take it personal. Just keep calm and brush it off, move on. Their, in this case misguide, opinion of you isn't worth agonizing over.

This isn't something like racist slur, this is a silly roleplaying label. If this label isn't who you are, don't let it bother you. It's all about attitude, there's nothing to bottle up if you don't even take it inside. Look at those who tried to call you a rollplayer and smile.

A word has power over you only if you let it, otherwise it's simply a word with no meaning or a different meaning then how other view it.

Honestly the only reason I commented in this thread was to give my 2 cents. Outside of places like this already discussing it, I never even use the word rollplayer.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

Chess Pwn,

I have to disagree with you in that I know quite a few people that find it help to to put either of the two terms in add's seeking new players. (both in person (home,game store, other) and online.

After talking to them about it our experience has been that most negative reactions are do to the person not being allowed to play and or being asked to leave the game. Which can pose a problem and is why such descriptive language was included in the game description to begin with.

As I said I appreciate this topic and I am being more selective in where i use the term (and try and explain it before hand) but even then in the last few days since this topic started the people that I would expect to have problems with the term have done so because it defines they play style to a T and if a new term was coined then they would have a problem with that term also.
I do understand that not everyone's experiences will be or are the same but I know that I try and get many different opinions and ranges of experience when I seek out information and I thank you and the others who have such feeling's for your's.
MDC

The problem is who is defining those terms, and how are they defining them. If I am both am i allowed or banned? What level of optimization is the cutoff before I am too Rollplay and not enough Roleplay?
I think this is where how I have defined the term and you are different, ie my roll-player are those who ignore fluff ( example:ignore fluff in traits and just go by benefits it gives you)

Fluff was made to be ignored.

Some of the best role-players out there create THEIR OWN fluff to align with their mechanics, crafting a unique story via their character.

IMHO, this is why it is important to define some type of play style as I know many groups in which if you ignored fluff you would not be allowed to play in the game.

I also know many games that believe as you do and ignore fluff.

The problems I have seen in the past are when the two groups cross or a GM thinks that everyone is following one way of doing PC creation (ie fallow fluff or ignore fluff) and either the NPC's do, the rest of the group does and one PC/NPC is out of wack vs the others. So you could have 1 PC being more powerful then the others or a lot weaker than the others making the GM's job a bit tougher.

In the past I had a rule in another system that said if you do not like you PC you can recreate them using the same rolls up to 3 sessions after we start. Every time I had 1 long time player re-make his PC the first three games constantly re-jiggering to get what he felt was a better PC. The main problem was that often he just ignored PC creation rules set down at the first session so he PC was way out of wack vs the others.
This resulted in me auditing his PC every other session to see just how out of wack it was because he would change things with out notifying me and make some serious mistakes (ie math mistakes, change bonuses, change stats, change gear weight, etc). Finally I just had to take his PC away from him as it was eating up about 20 min to a hour of my time before every game looking over his PC so I just kept his PC and gave it to him at the start of every game.
If I had this same problem to day I would just ask the play not to come back but at the time he was a long time friend of a goof friend and we were short of players so I had to come up with a means to solve the growing, disruptive problem.
I do agree now a-days it is much easier with PC software to create PC's but I have also seen some players create custom rules for PC creation that is really out of wack vs core PC creation and if they forget to unload the changes their PC's are vastly different then the others.

So again the fact that you feel fluff is there to be ignored where as other do not should say something to you, IMHO.
MDC


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Aranna wrote:
...

Are there words you don't use because they are offensive? By that, I mean are there ANY words you don't use because of the connotations that they carry?

Of course, there are a great many words whose core meaning IS offensive. There isn't any other reason to use such words other than as an offensive statement. Rollplayer isn't such a word. Its core meaning is descriptive and rather intuitive. Just look at it. At a glance you can tell this is referring to a mechanically oriented play style. The fact that no one seems to agree on where the boundary is separating a mechanical approach from a non mechanical one isn't relevant to its usefulness. In fact you will find ALL gaming terms have such a nebulous boundary.

Just curious, now that I've told you I don't like the word, that it has been used to insult me, are you going to use it to refer to me?

If you say yes, you're purposely using a word I've told you I find insulting.

If you say no, you're agreeing with me.

The word is not so unique that you can't describe what it describes without using it. It's not like trying to talk about downhill skiing without using the word snow. You can describe mechanically focused play without using the word "rollplayer"... I mean... I just did it with the phrase "mechanically focused play".

edit: The word isn't indispensable. It doesn't take a paragraph to work around it. If YOU want to use it, fine. You've been told what the context is. It's now YOUR decision if you want to invoke that context or not. If insulting fellow forum members isn't your goal, use a different term, otherwise you will be in danger of insulting someone, even if that isn't your intention.


Mark Carlson 255 wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

Chess Pwn,

I have to disagree with you in that I know quite a few people that find it help to to put either of the two terms in add's seeking new players. (both in person (home,game store, other) and online.

After talking to them about it our experience has been that most negative reactions are do to the person not being allowed to play and or being asked to leave the game. Which can pose a problem and is why such descriptive language was included in the game description to begin with.

As I said I appreciate this topic and I am being more selective in where i use the term (and try and explain it before hand) but even then in the last few days since this topic started the people that I would expect to have problems with the term have done so because it defines they play style to a T and if a new term was coined then they would have a problem with that term also.
I do understand that not everyone's experiences will be or are the same but I know that I try and get many different opinions and ranges of experience when I seek out information and I thank you and the others who have such feeling's for your's.
MDC

The problem is who is defining those terms, and how are they defining them. If I am both am i allowed or banned? What level of optimization is the cutoff before I am too Rollplay and not enough Roleplay?
I think this is where how I have defined the term and you are different, ie my roll-player are those who ignore fluff ( example:ignore fluff in traits and just go by benefits it gives you)

Fluff was made to be ignored.

Some of the best role-players out there create THEIR OWN fluff to align with their mechanics, crafting a unique story via their character.

IMHO, this is why it is important to define some type of play style as I know many groups in which if you ignored fluff you would not be allowed to play in the game.

I also know many games that...

He is saying that the fluff is the paint job on the car it can be changed, redone, worked over, or non-exsient and everything still works. But if you take the engine(the rules and mechanics) out you can have the most amazing paint job and nothing will do anything.


Talonhawke wrote:
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:


Fluff was made to be ignored.

Some of the best role-players out there create THEIR OWN fluff to align with their mechanics, crafting a unique story via their character.

IMHO, this is why it is important to define some type of play style as I know many groups in which if you ignored fluff you would not be allowed to play in the game.

I also know many games that believe as you do and ignore fluff.

He is saying that the fluff is the paint job on the car it can be changed, redone, worked over, or non-exsient and everything still works. But if you take the engine(the rules and mechanics) out you can have the most amazing paint job and nothing will do anything.

Yeah, we know.

And Mark was saying some people don't like to play like that. Are they wrong? Do they not know how they like to play? Do they need to be stopped and made to play correctly?

Fluff can be ignored. Rules can be ignored. Fluff can be changed. Rules can be changed. Various different groups have different tolerances for such approaches. That's okay. It really is. They don't need to be made to conform to your superior way.


thejeff wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:


Fluff was made to be ignored.

Some of the best role-players out there create THEIR OWN fluff to align with their mechanics, crafting a unique story via their character.

IMHO, this is why it is important to define some type of play style as I know many groups in which if you ignored fluff you would not be allowed to play in the game.

I also know many games that believe as you do and ignore fluff.

He is saying that the fluff is the paint job on the car it can be changed, redone, worked over, or non-exsient and everything still works. But if you take the engine(the rules and mechanics) out you can have the most amazing paint job and nothing will do anything.

Yeah, we know.

And Mark was saying some people don't like to play like that. Are they wrong? Do they not know how they like to play? Do they need to be stopped and made to play correctly?

Fluff can be ignored. Rules can be ignored. Fluff can be changed. Rules can be changed. Various different groups have different tolerances for such approaches. That's okay. It really is. They don't need to be made to conform to your superior way.

No Mark was saying some people don't like to ignore fluff, then complained about mechanically incorrect characters, which has nothing to do with fluff and makes no sense in the context of his complaint.


thejeff wrote:

Yeah, we know.

And Mark was saying some people don't like to play like that. Are they wrong? Do they not know how they like to play? Do they need to be stopped and made to play correctly?

Fluff can be ignored. Rules can be ignored. Fluff can be changed. Rules can be changed. Various different groups have different tolerances for such approaches. That's okay. It really is. They don't need to be made to conform to your superior way.

Mark Carlson 255 wrote:
So again the fact that you feel fluff is there to be ignored where as other do not should say something to you, IMHO.

That was someone being superior. And that was what I responded too. Yes you can monkey around with the engine and tweak it. Hell I run Kirthfinder over Pathfinder any chance I can, but I still have an engine. You can't actually play a game without some form of mechanics and rules, you can't actually play an RPG without it either. But when the character is all said and done it will run with a new paint job. If I get told to build a character for Rise of the Runelords, and show up and we are now running in Eberron and the DM is writing his own adventures but still using the PF rules set I'm probably gonna be just fine outside of a handful of fluff things that might not work in the setting. But if you say we are running a PF in Ebberon and I show up to 5E the fluff might be fine 100% but I have to rebuild the engine before it'll go.


Irontruth wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Aranna wrote:
...

Are there words you don't use because they are offensive? By that, I mean are there ANY words you don't use because of the connotations that they carry?

Of course, there are a great many words whose core meaning IS offensive. There isn't any other reason to use such words other than as an offensive statement. Rollplayer isn't such a word. Its core meaning is descriptive and rather intuitive. Just look at it. At a glance you can tell this is referring to a mechanically oriented play style. The fact that no one seems to agree on where the boundary is separating a mechanical approach from a non mechanical one isn't relevant to its usefulness. In fact you will find ALL gaming terms have such a nebulous boundary.

Just curious, now that I've told you I don't like the word, that it has been used to insult me, are you going to use it to refer to me?

If you say yes, you're purposely using a word I've told you I find insulting.

If you say no, you're agreeing with me.

The word is not so unique that you can't describe what it describes without using it. It's not like trying to talk about downhill skiing without using the word snow. You can describe mechanically focused play without using the word "rollplayer"... I mean... I just did it with the phrase "mechanically focused play".

edit: The word isn't indispensable. It doesn't take a paragraph to work around it. If YOU want to use it, fine. You've been told what the context is. It's now YOUR decision if you want to invoke that context or not. If insulting fellow forum members isn't your goal, use a different term, otherwise you will be in danger of insulting someone, even if that isn't your intention.

I have zero reason to ever call you a rollplayer. In fact to my knowledge I have never called anyone a rollplayer. I have used the word in an analytical sense and defend its use only n that regard. If I wanted to discuss a specific persons playstyle I would probably use more specific terms anyway. But for general discussion about play styles it works well.


Aranna wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Aranna wrote:
...

Are there words you don't use because they are offensive? By that, I mean are there ANY words you don't use because of the connotations that they carry?

Of course, there are a great many words whose core meaning IS offensive. There isn't any other reason to use such words other than as an offensive statement. Rollplayer isn't such a word. Its core meaning is descriptive and rather intuitive. Just look at it. At a glance you can tell this is referring to a mechanically oriented play style. The fact that no one seems to agree on where the boundary is separating a mechanical approach from a non mechanical one isn't relevant to its usefulness. In fact you will find ALL gaming terms have such a nebulous boundary.

Just curious, now that I've told you I don't like the word, that it has been used to insult me, are you going to use it to refer to me?

If you say yes, you're purposely using a word I've told you I find insulting.

If you say no, you're agreeing with me.

The word is not so unique that you can't describe what it describes without using it. It's not like trying to talk about downhill skiing without using the word snow. You can describe mechanically focused play without using the word "rollplayer"... I mean... I just did it with the phrase "mechanically focused play".

edit: The word isn't indispensable. It doesn't take a paragraph to work around it. If YOU want to use it, fine. You've been told what the context is. It's now YOUR decision if you want to invoke that context or not. If insulting fellow forum members isn't your goal, use a different term, otherwise you will be in danger of insulting someone, even if that isn't your intention.

I have zero reason to ever call you a rollplayer. In fact to my knowledge I have never called anyone a rollplayer. I have used the word in an analytical sense and defend its use only n that regard. If I wanted to discuss a specific persons playstyle I would probably use more specific terms anyway. But for general discussion about play styles it works well.

No. No it doesn't work well for any general discussion. It has no use for describing anything because it means so many things (some of them insulting) that you then have to spend more time describing what you think it means to other people when you could just use other words that actually have a meaning that people agree on.

This word is useless for discussions and it's needlessly insulting to some people. Why have you chosen it as your hill to die on?


Calth wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
He is saying that the fluff is the paint job on the car it can be changed, redone, worked over, or non-exsient and everything still works. But if you take the engine(the rules and mechanics) out you can have the most amazing paint job and nothing will do anything.

Yeah, we know.

And Mark was saying some people don't like to play like that. Are they wrong? Do they not know how they like to play? Do they need to be stopped and made to play correctly?

Fluff can be ignored. Rules can be ignored. Fluff can be changed. Rules can be changed. Various different groups have different tolerances for such approaches. That's okay. It really is. They don't need to be made to conform to your superior way.

No Mark was saying some people don't like to ignore fluff, then complained about mechanically incorrect characters, which has nothing to do with fluff and makes no sense in the context of his complaint.

THANK YOU. I was so puzzled by that post, lol. I'm glad someone else noticed that his long example didn't have anything to do with fluff at all. But I've left this discussion, so I didn't want to say anything :X

*goes back into self-imposed exile*

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
What about those of us who create Mechanics first, but write MORE and BETTER story than those self-proclaimed 'Role-players'?

Well, then those players are clearly awesome roleplayers themselves and I actually don't know why anyone whould refer to them as roll-players instead. ;)

The thing is (and that seems to get lost sometimes in those discussions), that it's rather about degree than about absolutes. If you want to have meaningful discussions about differences in play style, you necessarily need to have a categorization system. Now I agree that the terms used for those categorys should be well defined and a lot of effort on that has been made in the indy scene (and unluckily has been mostly ignored by the D&D & variants crowd). Add to that human nature und suddenly decsriptive terms are used as insults (because if you don't play the way I do, your play style must obviously be inferior to mine - total BS, if you ask me).

I mean, obviously there is a difference in our approach to building a character. You create mechanics first and then add character description and story to it, while I start with the description and the story and then think about how to translate this into mechanics. And this may be only one of the differences between our approaches.

So how can we talk about those differences in a constructive way, when we have to start with probably several pages of dilligently describing what our approach actually is? (and this is only two of us, while every other participant in the discussion might have his own unique approach to this) We do this by giving those differences a hopefully fitting descriptor. Problem being that as soon as we do that, any idiot might come and use this new term in an offensive, insulting way. We can't do anything about it, because those idiots exist, but we need those descriptors as abbreviations to make progress in our discussion.

And I think that's where Aranna is coming from. If you insist on a descriptor as being offensive, we won't solve the problem by inventing new descriptors which get as easily abused as the old ones. We also won't solve the problem by not using any descriptors at all. So the only solution might be to stop letting the idiots win by letting them define the meaning of the descriptors.

And this shouldn't be misunderstood as me advocating for the terms this thread is about. I already said that I think this distinction is meaningless because they are not exclusive to each other.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
JonathonWilder wrote:

If they don't know you personally Bandw2, then don't take it personal. Just keep calm and brush it off, move on. Their, in this case misguide, opinion of you isn't worth agonizing over.

This isn't something like racist slur, this is a silly roleplaying label. If this label isn't who you are, don't let it bother you. It's all about attitude, there's nothing to bottle up if you don't even take it inside. Look at those who tried to call you a rollplayer and smile.

A word has power over you only if you let it, otherwise it's simply a word with no meaning or a different meaning then how other view it.

Honestly the only reason I commented in this thread was to give my 2 cents. Outside of places like this already discussing it, I never even use the word rollplayer.

once again, people should stop assuming i've taken this stance because I've been called a rollplayer. Besides, being called something over and over again by strangers is sometimes worse than it being rarely by someone you know.

"Look at those who tried to call you a rollplayer and smile."

I'm bringing this out specifically, because remember how I said to look at the book Invisible Man? this is one of the things a character tells the protagonist to do, to "kill them with smiles", the protagonist ended up feeling after some events in the book that that wasn't good enough because it didn't change anything, it was a partial acceptance of what they said to be true. People exploit your acceptance to often think it's okay themselves.

Also don't get hung up on the racialness of the Invisible Man. It's a book about self identity much more than racial prejudice, it's simply framed from the eyes of the author, who is black. he's the invisible man because no one sees himself for who he is, blacks or whites, conformists or confrontationists, both sides believing he should be something and ends with him having a break down where he disconnects from society completely, but believing he'll rejoin society soon as something not reliant on any of that.

basically i'm saying, using this term is not okay, there's a bunch of reasons, to not use it and all of them out weigh any benefit you could gain from using it. from an objective standpoint, nothing is gained when words like this are used, for yourself, the target, who where ever you are talking to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
WormysQueue wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
What about those of us who create Mechanics first, but write MORE and BETTER story than those self-proclaimed 'Role-players'?
Well, then those players are clearly awesome roleplayers themselves and I actually don't know why anyone whould refer to them as roll-players instead. ;)

it's because he took reactionary and wasn't beat up as a child.


If the term ACTUALLY meant something, like something that 80% agreed was their first though upon reading the word, then maybe there'd be some merit in saying it's a descriptor.

BUT IT ISN'T.

The majority agreement has been that it's an insult insinuating wrong playstyle. So the word as a descriptor doesn't mean anything. Words are only useful if they can correctly convey ideas, this word doesn't. If you were to use it you'd spend more time explaining what it means then using the 2 words you meant it to mean.

mechanics driven, optimized, non-describer of actions, doesn't talk in first person or in character, metagamer, etc... These words will convey your meaning far more accurately than "rollplayer"

Like it I started calling someone a gloober (a made up word) because it means something to me doesn't make the word inherently a descriptor as it doesn't convey that meaning to anyone else.

451 to 500 of 699 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Roleplay vs Rollplay All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.