Writing a manual for roleplay

[howandwhy99]

I can't really address what constitutes an "acting game," as this is the first time I've ever heard the term used.

However, I think I can safely say that Chess is not a roleplaying game, for reasons I stated above. A game does not become an RPG because the player chooses to adopt a persona. I consider this irrefutable.

Admittedly, we could go on and on off topic about what to consider acting or not acting. I'll explain the justification as far as I understand it. Plus I have a few questions, but they are really more of a barometer to see what one includes as role-playing and not role-playing.

First, the White Wolf argument is that D&D players aren't really role-playing because they aren't portraying an alternate personality. Tim can put down on his character sheet "Tim #1" and never bother to do what I had called Acting. This would be true to form for why the term role-playing was originally coined. It's about what you would do in another situation, not portraying another person.

As to the argument for what Acting (theatre acting, not just taking any kind of action) is:
If you are pretending something is real when it is not, you are acting. Acting is lying to another person. It's even lying to yourself. You may not even realize you are acting, just as someone dressed as a clown is acting because they chose to dress up as a clown when that isn't what they are. They may not personally understand what they are doing qualifies as acting, but their intention to dress as a clown still qualifies regardless. They are in the drab of an actor.

Here's what is happening in Chess. A puppeteer is an actor. He acts through the puppet on stage. He can even control multiple puppets (playing multiple roles) at the same time. For instance, if he has two brawl on stage, he is acting two roles at once. If the puppet is Sonic the Hedgehog, it is still acting. You may move Sonic about as if he has his own personality (traditional acting IMO), or you may move him according to your own wishes (traditional RP IMO). Apparently, scope of action possible doesn't matter. So when you take on the roles of the pieces in a Chess game, you are puppeting them whether you choose to give them a personality or not.

Personally, I don't think acting without pretending a different personality should could count as theatre acting. But as one of the two definitions of role-playing is theatre acting, role-playing becomes all the above things too. I'd rather role-playing had only to do with why the term was coined in the first place, but then you're disagreement would be unfounded. And White Wolf players would be wrong with thinking role-playing == acting with another personality (which you say can't happen because they are too big a part of the RPG community). Also, if that were true, theatre games would not be considered role-playing games. They aren't about testing a person in another role (in the sociological sense), but in portraying a character. That parenting game in 5th grade with the egg? That's rightly termed a role-playing game. As are likely all educational role-playing activities. Portraying another personality is secondary and unnecessary to actually role-play a character.

Here are some questions to help gauge what a person includes as RP:
1. Are you role-playing when you pretend you are different person?
2. Are you role-playing when you ask take action according to any answer to "what would my character do"? (traditional acting definition)
3. Are you role-playing when you pretend you are in a hypothetical situation? (traditional role-playing definition)
4. Are you role-playing when you move an object around to give it personality? (traditional puppetry arts, most of D&D)
5. Are you role-playing when you take action with an object? (acting with motive upon an object, D&D combat as Tim #1, wargames, Chess)

My answers are:
1. is confusing, but probably the right definition as it covers both definitions posted earlier.
2. is the acting kind of role-playing.
3. is traditional role-playing.
4. is a CRPG role-playing board
5. is typical, non-acting role-playing in a computer game.

The problem is most designers in the industry have decided #3, 4, & 5 are bad game design and #2 is how games should be designed. IMO, this completely contradicts the success had by the CRPG industry. It's saying Chess is badly designed as it doesn't allow good stories.

 

[buzz]

With all due respect, howandwhy99, I think bringing in the topic of acting is really confusing the issue. It's certainly confusing me. We're not talking about acting. We're talking about role-playing games.

As for your list, I would say that #2 is something that RPG design trends have been fighting against quite vehemently. Most of the games that have come out of the Forge actively thwart it.

As for White Wolf, yes, I've heard that argument made. It's bogus, of course. By playing D&D, one is, by definition, portraying an imaginary character that is not them. That they may not be prioritizing character immersion is irrelevant. The whole game is based on the idea that players are taking on the roles of individual adventurers in an imagined environment.

The point I am trying to make is that a game does not become a role-paying game simply because a player decides to "role-play" (in the dictionary sense) while in proximity to the game pieces. That is basically an extreme version of System Doesn't Matter, and I honestly consider the idea fully debunked at this point.

A role-playing game is a role-playing game because the game is based on the idea that players will be playing roles, and doing so is germane to the functionality of the game. It's immaterial whether the players engage those roles to kick ass (GNS-Gamism), explore a fantastic world (GNS-Simulationism), or address a thematic premise (GNS-Narrativism). It's all role-playing.

And, no matter how hard you try, Monopoly and Chess cannot accomplish any of those things, because they are not role-playing games. Their rules function identically regardless of whether you are pretending to be someone else or not. Doing so has zero impact. There are no characters, no fictional world, no narrative, nada.

 

[Mistwell]

There are several articles printed (or reprinted) in the Monsters and Other Childish Things main book. I think you would find them very helpful.

 

[howandwhy99]

With all due respect, howandwhy99, I think bringing in the topic of acting is really confusing the issue. It's certainly confusing me. We're not talking about acting. We're talking about role-playing games.

I know, but as defined all acting is role-playing. So all those games are role-playing games.

EDIT: Also, are you saying CRPGs are not role-playing games because they don't change no matter how you play them? CRPGs are the quintessential role-playing games. It is you in a simulated fiction. If they are not, then the theory is wrong.

There are several articles printed (or reprinted) in the Monsters and Other Childish Things main book. I think you would find them very helpful.

Nothing not for purchase?

 

[Mistwell]

I know, but as defined all acting is role-playing. So all those games are role-playing games.

EDIT: Also, are you saying CRPGs are not role-playing games because they don't change no matter how you play them? CRPGs are the quintessential role-playing games. It is you in a simulated fiction. If they are not, then the theory is wrong.


Nothing not for purchase?

Not that I am aware of, but you might email them, tell them what you are working on, and ask.

 

[Amanchanamun]

Afther these discussions

Well. So what did we decide ?

Do we need a manual or not ?

What ever, i keep on writing and it will exceed 300 pages.

 

[buzz]

I know, but as defined all acting is role-playing. So all those games are role-playing games.

EDIT: Also, are you saying CRPGs are not role-playing games because they don't change no matter how you play them? CRPGs are the quintessential role-playing games. It is you in a simulated fiction. If they are not, then the theory is wrong.

I think at this point you may be reading past me or something. I never addressed CRPGs, nor made any statements about change or lack thereof.

I'm also not sure what "those games" are in your statement above. If you're once again referring to Chess and Monopoly, I'll have to respectfully remind you that you are incorrect. This is irrefutable.

To bring this back to the OP, I suggest taking a look at some of the products I suggested on page 1, as well as checking out places like The Forge and John Kim's archive of theory topics. Because, otherwise, I suspect that you'll be covering ground already well-trodden by "one true way" RPG thinking of the early '90s, and I certainly don't want to be reading 300 pages of that nonsense.