hawkeyefan
Legend
But surely there aren't many different ways to take on a role of a character in a shared fiction? Are you incapable of even attempting to define what taking on the role of a character means? If so I'd say that you've not really provided much of a definition at all, as it can mean whatever the reader actually wants it to mean, based on however the reader interprets "take on the role of a character".
Yup. It will indeed mean different things to different people.
For me, taking on a role most often means a role in a story....a persona, a specific character...and I play the game essentially advocating for that character within the story.
There are times a DM is roleplaying an NPC. Pretty much anytime he is having an NPC interact with the PC's would be a time he could be considered to be roleplaying. A large portion of his job isn't just controlling NPC interactions with PC's though. It's also creating the setting/world etc. That part isn't roleplay.
I would say even that is debatable, but let’s not even worry about the GM’s other roles (whoa) in the game.
You claimed that true roleplaying doesn’t allow for the player to determine how anyone reacts to them, or for the GM to determine how a PC reacts. My point is that reactions of characters are different for players and GMs. The rules work differently for PCs than they do for NPCs (or, they very often do, I should say). And some of those ways clearly break this rule you’ve come up with. Something as simple as a surprise roll means the PC is surprised....no choice. Spells and saving throws and similar mechanics. Some games allow for social actions to influence others.
Sometimes the actions or reactions of characters are beyond the control of the player or GM. If my character fails a saving throw when a dragon lands next to him, are you going to say that I’m not roleplaying when I have him throw down his sword and run? Am I not playing the role of someone in the fiction by doing so? If I insist that I attack the dragon, is the GM somehow in the wrong to say “no, you cannot attack....you have to freeze in terror or flee”?
Other games also break this rule of yours. It doesn’t make them any less roleplaying games than any other.
And while I think your rule is a perfectly fine approach to roleplaying games, I think that’s all it is...an approach, not a definition.
The Chess is a roleplaying game! No? Then maybe it's not quite as simple as playing a role...
I do think role playing is that simple. If I sit down to play chess with you, and every turn I have my King issue orders to the piece I move, and then I have that piece respond in kind...I’m roleplaying. But since chess doesn’t require that in order to function, I’m not playing a roleplaying game.