Writing a manual for roleplay

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

role-play
1. To assume or represent in a drama; act out
2. To assume or act out a particular role.
(The American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Edition)

Both are "correct," the trouble is the distinction between definitions 1 and 2.

Well, JoeKushner has a quote from me about the 4th Edition AHD. Suffice to say it can't be trusted...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'd like it. We'd still be playing 3.5 and in 2012 we'd have a new game and no one would moan about it being incomplete.

The OP's location says "Turkey". Draw you own conclusion.

What, 4 years more 3.5? Nooo! (Just kidding.)

The problem is it simply wouldn't work economically. WotC would have to spend those extra 4 years designing and developing, not making money. And not many gamers are willing to spend so much money on Core Rules, certainly not newcomers.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

To the OP:

Buzz has it right. Because "role-playing" was incorrectly defined as theatre acting way, way back in the beginning of the hobby we have these foolish notions of what is and isn't role-playing. Your definition sounds like the typical World of Darkness definition (that role-playing = acting). There were many IMO snobbish arguments 15-20 years ago about how D&D players weren't "real" role-players. But it turns out that whole crowd was wrong. What they wanted, and what they didn't get in "Storyteller" games, was a theatre game. This is because acting and role-playing are two very different things.

I think at this point neither side is wrong. These are the two things that you can understand under the term of role-playing, and I think too some extend, you will encounter both in an RPG. It might make sense to find terms to differentiate them stronger. Maybe "character exploration" vs "world exploration" or something like that, but even that seems too short and imprecise. But telling a large set of players that they are using a term wrong just doesn't work.

 

[buzz]

It might make sense to find terms to differentiate them stronger. Maybe "character exploration" vs "world exploration" or something like that, but even that seems too short and imprecise. But telling a large set of players that they are using a term wrong just doesn't work.

I mention above various attempts to come up with these terms (GDS, GNS, etc).

However, I do think that telling people they are using the terms wrong has some merit. I simply don't buy that I am not "roleplaying" just because I may be prioritizing tactics over immersion. It's just not helpful in any way I can see. Honestly, it's divisive.

 

[howandwhy99]

I think at this point neither side is wrong. These are the two things that you can understand under the term of role-playing, and I think too some extend, you will encounter both in an RPG. It might make sense to find terms to differentiate them stronger. Maybe "character exploration" vs "world exploration" or something like that, but even that seems too short and imprecise. But telling a large set of players that they are using a term wrong just doesn't work.

I've done a little more research on acting and apparently my distinction between acting and role-playing is incorrect. It really doesn't matter if you intend to do what I called acting or not, you are still potentially acting. If you are part of an activity where at least one person is pretending to be something they are not, you also are an actor. In that regard, pretty much every game can be (and probably is) an acting game. Just as being an extra in a movie shot without ever knowing you were in a film is acting, knowingly or unknowingly posing for a picture, as you are still in the film or picture, is also being an actor.

In the same way, if you play Chess as if you were the King piece, you are not just role-playing by my definition, but also acting. The two overlap. In fact, as long as you are pretending to be the king (something everyone does when they move the king in order to keep it alive) it doesn't matter how the other players play, they are also acting.

This didn't seem intuitively true to me at first, but it was explained as the following: A puppeteer can use his puppet to display another personality or he can just pretend it is him (like the Chess player pretending the king is him). If you use a puppet (or pretty much any kind of object like in a videogame) to your own ends, you are acting through the puppet. It's the same as if you were an extra in a movie shot.

In all honesty, I still think role-playing should specifically denote the definition under which it was originally coined,* where you the player are in a role, not performing another personality. Then we'd not have these game problems where I play Chess to remove all your pieces from the board and you play Chess to pretend you're a king's court attempting to avoid conflict at all costs.




*In 1947 by psychologists to put patients in the shoes of another person [or thing I would guess]. They didn't want to see a stage show, they wanted the patient to experience what others were going through.

EDIT: (link) for origin of the term.

 

[buzz]

In the same way, if you play Chess as if you were the King piece, you are not just role-playing by my definition, but also acting.

This may be drifting the thread, but I would not consider anything one does while playing Chess to be roleplaying. You can pretend you're a king all you want, but the rules of Chess define no roles, no situation, and no shared imagined space. On top of this, a single player is controlling multiple pieces, each of which corresponds to only the most abstract of concepts. E.g., the game does not change whether you're using pewter, LOTR-themed pieces or plastic Simpsons-themed ones.

Moving pieces according to fiction you're imposing on the game experience isn't roleplaying; it's just playing Chess very poorly.

 

[howandwhy99]

Moving pieces according to fiction you're imposing on the game experience isn't roleplaying; it's just playing Chess very poorly.

See, that's where I think you are wrong. Whether I intend to or not, I am acting as if I am the king when playing Chess by moving its' piece. Therefore, I am Acting. Game rules have nothing to do with it. Acting doesn't require one to play a single role. Nor do you even need to know you are that role.

Otherwise your argument is the White Wolf one all over again. Where Players aren't really role-playing when they use the D&D combat system in Chainmail(1971) and are role-playing when using it in OD&D(1974). All wargames are role-playing games as you assume a role or roles within them. Giving personality to any one of them is unnecessary. You are the piece, or pieces, or battle commander. Ditto for any simulation game. It's impossible not to be acting in a simulation game.

EDIT: I should probably say, not ever role-playing in D&D except by accident.

 

[1auxy]

Roleplaying is a thing you choose to do (or not to do, alternatively). It is not something that others can do for you, that can be 'given' to you, or that you can be made to do.

+1

Roleplaying is a pretty personal thing (IMO) that some people are comfortable doing, some people are comfortable doing to a certain extent, and a thing that some do in a way that you and I may not view as roleplaying...but to them they are immersed in the story and helping to drive it forward.

I believe that roleplaying is truly about immersing yourself in the story,thinking outside of the box, and helping the plot advance in whatever way you are comfortable doing so.

 

[buzz]

See, that's where I think you are wrong. Whether I intend to or not, I am acting as if I am the king when playing Chess by moving its' piece. Therefore, I am Acting. Game rules have nothing to do with it. Acting doesn't require one to play a single role. Nor do you even need to know you are that role.

I would not argue that you aren't acting. I just would not consider it roleplaying in any RPG sense of the word. You just happen to be acting like a medieval king while sitting near a Chess board.

Otherwise your argument is the White Wolf one all over again. Where Players aren't really role-playing when they use the D&D combat system in Chainmail(1971) and are role-playing when using it in OD&D(1974). All wargames are role-playing games as you assume a role or roles within them. Giving personality to any one of them is unnecessary. You are the piece, or pieces, or battle commander. Ditto for any simulation game. It's impossible not to be acting in a simulation game.

I dunno from White Wolf. I'm not sure I understand the Chainmail/OD&D reference, either. OD&D is very obviously an RPG, whether you are using the matrices in Chainmail or the "variant" combat tables in the little books.

I think, however, that a wargame is, by definition, not a roleplaying game, ergo, you are not roleplaying when you play one, no matter how much you pretend you're a Prussian general or dwarven captain. There is no role for you to assume other than "player who is controlling this army against the other player." There is no exploration, no fiction, no shared imagined space, no character. Zip.

"Roleplaying" is not this disembodied act you can perform with games like Monopoly or Hopscotch. If the game does facilitate playing a role in any meaningful way relevant to the function of the game, you can't make it "roleplaying" no matter how much you try to identify or emote.

 

[howandwhy99]

I would not argue that you aren't acting. I just would not consider it roleplaying in any RPG sense of the word. You just happen to be acting like a medieval king while sitting near a Chess board.

I certainly didn't either, but as the definition shows above, the term Role-playing subsumes acting. Any acting game is a role-playing game.

I dunno from White Wolf. I'm not sure I understand the Chainmail/OD&D reference, either. OD&D is very obviously an RPG, whether you are using the matrices in Chainmail or the "variant" combat tables in the little books.

I think, however, that a wargame is, by definition, not a roleplaying game, ergo, you are not roleplaying when you play one, no matter how much you pretend you're a Prussian general or dwarven captain. There is no role for you to assume other than "player who is controlling this army against the other player." There is no exploration, no fiction, no shared imagined space, no character. Zip.

"Roleplaying" is not this disembodied act you can perform with games like Monopoly or Hopscotch. If the game does facilitate playing a role in any meaningful way relevant to the function of the game, you can't make it "roleplaying" no matter how much you try to identify or emote.

I originally defined the difference as a matter of scope. But if you are acting in every case for these games, then they are acting games/role-playing games. I didn't know this myself until I read up on what exactly qualifies as Acting. It's pretty broad in that pretty much every computer game is considered an Acting game and therefore an RPG.

But yes, its much easier to say that D&D is like Chess and you should be playing to according to the designer's intent vs. playing however a player wishes.

EDIT: The old White Wolf community argument was that D&D players weren't role-playing when playing OOC. Which isn't true. I've said in the past this was the difference between acting and role-playing. But all of it is acting/role-playing. Same as if you are playing a wargame or using wargame rules (Chainmail '71) in a broader system (D&D).