Why are social encounters called "roleplaying encounters?"

[Crothian]

It's just a term. People aren't being elitist by it or anything. When talking in character some people tend to involve themselves more in the role of their character then at other times.

 

[Glyfair]

Barbarian needs attention, badly!

He sees the other guys having fun doing stuff and he wants to do that same stuff. But he's optimized his PC to do completely other stuff, and he may not actually enjoy doing that RP stuff. He might just want attention.

I think this might be close to the real problem (or one of them). A low Charisma doesn't mean a character doesn't get roleplayed. When the group walks into a tavern, I'm sure that the character gets to interact with the "scene" as much as the other players, without having to turn it into a bar room brawl.

Roleplaying, in the "character interaction" sense, doesn't necessarily require social skills for the character. It just requires some "scenes" where he would be interested in participating in the interaction. Maybe he doesn't feel he has had any of them.

Of course, it's quite likely that there are other issues here. I don't quite understand so many players deciding to have low Charisma in a campaign that is supposed to be political based. Did they really understand that going in?

Secondly, that could have been a bad day for the player. I've seen players who are normally high on the "thespian scale" come in to a session after a bad day and say "I just want to kill things tonight." Maybe that night was just one of those nights for him.

 

[Glyfair]

It's just a term. People aren't being elitist by it or anything. When talking in character some people tend to involve themselves more in the role of their character then at other times.

I partially agree with this. It has been the accepted term for a long time, even if it is confusing because both definitions of "roleplaying" tend to be used together. Assuming that someone is being elitist by using it is a bad idea. Most of the time it's just used as a term.

On the other hand, it is sometimes used as an elitist term. Usually you can tell based on who is using it, or the context. For example, if the word "rollplaying" is used at the same time, it is almost always used in an elitist way.

 

[Psion]

Social or negotiation-based encounters are generally called "roleplaying encounters" because of the widespread misperception that equates "roleplaying" with thespianism (i.e. play-acting, speaking dialogue in your character's voice). The truth is, roleplaying is much more than that and a combat or puzzle-solving encounter involves just as much roleplaying (i.e. playing the role of your character, acting as you would were you this character in this situation) as a social or negotiation encounter.

So, because someone uses a term differently than you do in a different context, they have a "misperception"?

Usage drives meaning of words. I would have understood what someone meant if they asked if we could have more roleplaying.

(OTOH, if a player emailed me and said they don't like "roll-playing", I'd probably kick them out on their ear.)

 

[TheCrazyMuffinMan]

It's a convention perpetuated by some people who believe talking is "roleplaying" and rolling dice is "not roleplaying." It's not a universal usage. Most gamers I know would say "social encounter," "talking encounter," or just "talking with NPCs." Obviously, you are roleplaying in the midst of any combat, unless you are really cleaving people with a greataxe.

Agreed. It'd be better off if the "combat is -not- roleplaying, even in a game that necessarily is" series of thought-terminating cliches were to fail their fort save and die already.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

Are certain players at your table doing all (or most) of the talking? In heavy roleplaying situations, I find it helps to divide the table up into smaller groups of 2 or 3. After 10-15 minutes with one group, switch the action to the next. Rotate as necessary. This keeps folks from being uninvolved.

 

[buzz]

In contrast to buzz, I firmly believe that if dice are being rolled, you have failed at whatever situation is at hand, in general.

Do you mean that you prefer not to use dice/rules for social encounters?

 

[eschwenke]

In contrast to buzz, I firmly believe that if dice are being rolled, you have failed at whatever situation is at hand, in general.

Die-rolls show how affective one is at interacting with the game-world. One's words merely describe what is attempted.

But then, I'm a simulationist.

 

[Mallus]

Die-rolls show how affective one is at interacting with the game-world. One's words merely describe what is attempted.

Except when they're used to decide if the thing attempted succeeds or not.

But then, I'm a pragmatist. I'll use whatever resolution system produces the most entertaining play situation.

 

[T. Foster]

So, because someone uses a term differently than you do in a different context, they have a "misperception"?

Usage drives meaning of words. I would have understood what someone meant if they asked if we could have more roleplaying.

(OTOH, if a player emailed me and said they don't like "roll-playing", I'd probably kick them out on their ear.)

Considering that for ~20 years I've seen the term used in that way almost exclusively as an attack on the style of play I prefer ("you're not really roleplaying, you're just roll-playing") I have no qualms about forcefully stating the opposite position, nor would I hesitate to correct a player in one of my games who said they wanted "more roleplaying encounters" ("you mean you want more in-character verbal interaction? Because really the whole game, including combat and puzzle-solving, is roleplaying...") and I'm not going to apologize for it.