Would you allow this?

[iserith]

Heh, if you google the definition of role-playing, both meanings are right there:

Saelorn was using definition 1 and saying that's what he prefers. But that doesn't mean definition 2 is invalid, and I don't think anyone ever meant to imply differently.

"Roleplaying" is also clearly defined in the rules of the game as the player playing a role, which can be communicated through active or descriptive means. The player's prescribed role in the game does not include adding details beyond describing what he or she wants to do, however. Though I personally find those details to be a good addition to the game within certain reasonable limits.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Heh, if you google the definition of role-playing, both meanings are right there:

Saelorn was using definition 1 and saying that's what he prefers. But that doesn't mean definition 2 is invalid, and I don't think anyone ever meant to imply differently.

I was unaware that definition 2 had been added to a dictionary at any point, and I would further suggest that it could be confusing in the context of the thread at hand (or probably anywhere else on these boards).

As another analogy, you can say that you're playing Nintendo while you're actually playing XBone (such as if you're talking to an elderly relative, who might not know what an XBone is), but it's mis-leading when you're actually discussing the merits of various consoles. If I don't like XBone because the controller is oddly-shaped, then calling it a Nintendo would add significantly to the confusion.

 

[Maxperson]

Heh, if you google the definition of role-playing, both meanings are right there:

Saelorn was using definition 1 and saying that's what he prefers. But that doesn't mean definition 2 is invalid, and I don't think anyone ever meant to imply differently.

[MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] already acknowledged that someone adding details is using the first definition as I argued, but that he didn't care for the additions and it wasn't this thing. I've never argued that the second definition is what I am using, as I wasn't using it.

 

[Maxperson]

I was unaware that definition 2 had been added to a dictionary at any point, and I would further suggest that it could be confusing in the context of the thread at hand (or probably anywhere else on these boards).

As another analogy, you can say that you're playing Nintendo while you're actually playing XBone (such as if you're talking to an elderly relative, who might not know what an XBone is), but it's mis-leading when you're actually discussing the merits of various consoles. If I don't like XBone because the controller is oddly-shaped, then calling it a Nintendo would add significantly to the confusion.

That's a bad analogy. The proper analogy is that people who are using both Nintendo and Xbox are playing video games. Xbox players are playing video games every bit as much as Nintendo players, but you were claiming that only Nintendo players were playing video games because the Xbox it added an oddly-shaped controller . I came along and argued that no, both are playing video games, even with the addition of the controller, which you then agreed was correct.

 

[jaelis]

[MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] already acknowledged that someone adding details is using the first definition as I argued, but that he didn't care for the additions and it wasn't this thing. I've never argued that the second definition is what I am using, as I wasn't using it.

Interesting, then I guess I do disagree with you about it. IMO "acting out of the part of a particular person or character" cannot reasonably include narrating the response of other characters as well.

(Of course you could roleplay more than one character at a time, I have no problem with that, but I guess it is not what you mean. It sounds like you feel that narrating the response to your character is part of roleplaying that character.)

Anyway, my opinion of your definitions is probably not very interesting to you, no reason it should be.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

That's a bad analogy. The proper analogy is that people who are using both Nintendo and Xbox are playing video games. Xbox players are playing video games every bit as much as Nintendo players, but you were claiming that only Nintendo players were playing video games because the Xbox it added an oddly-shaped controller . I came along and argued that no, both are playing video games, even with the addition of the controller, which you then agreed was correct.

No, because even if you take it as a general term for playing certain types of games, "role-playing" is still etymologically rooted in the other definition. By using such a term, you would be very likely to confuse people, which was my point.

Especially on these boards, where half of the threads are about the topic of meta-gaming, it's important to use the more-specific terms.

 

[Maxperson]

Interesting, then I guess I do disagree with you about it. IMO "acting out of the part of a particular person or character" cannot reasonably include narrating the response of other characters as well.

They aren't. They are acting out the part of their particular character AND THEN they are narrating the response. Two different things, the latter of which cannot negate the former.

(Of course you could roleplay more than one character at a time, I have no problem with that, but I guess it is not what you mean. It sounds like you feel that narrating the response to your character is part of roleplaying that character.)

Other than my saying at least 3 times that it was roleplaying PLUS something extra, which is explicitly saying that the narration of the other character is not a part of the roleplay

No, because even if you take it as a general term for playing certain types of games, "role-playing" is still etymologically rooted in the other definition. By using such a term, you would be very likely to confuse people, which was my point.

This is flat out wrong. From what you have described, you don't roleplay one whit more than the guy who narrates the response. Both of you are acting as you character in response to what the character perceives, and so is that guy. That he then engages an extra meta ability that you don't have doesn't negate his roleplaying, which fits the first roleplaying definition exactly.

To say otherwise is to engage in One True Wayism. You are saying that the way you act in character in response to what the character perceives is right, and when he acts in character in response to what the character perceives he is wrong.

 

[RogueHalfling]

My problem with this issue would be three-fold. First, there's no documentation that Aasimar can re-grow or regenerate wings which have been severed or scorched off. Second, the sudden sprouting of full-strength-wings regenerated that quickly? Third, the PC can now use these wings, without any
adjustment period, or practice?

If another member of the party, better yet, two casters, could provide re-enforcement, or healing spells, I'd accept it.

That is an oddly pseudo-biological response to a magical issue. You do realize if the wings were "real" that couldn't support flight, so having them always or suddenly would make no difference.

 

[RogueHalfling]

I think my DM would allow it.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

This is flat out wrong. From what you have described, you don't roleplay one whit more than the guy who narrates the response. Both of you are acting as you character in response to what the character perceives, and so is that guy. That he then engages an extra meta ability that you don't have doesn't negate his roleplaying, which fits the first roleplaying definition exactly.

To say otherwise is to engage in One True Wayism. You are saying that the way you act in character in response to what the character perceives is right, and when he acts in character in response to what the character perceives he is wrong.

I'm not saying that he's role-playing incorrectly, when he's role-playing. I'm saying that, to refer to both the role-playing and the other thing as role-playing is to confuse the term. He's doing two distinct things: role-playing, and something else. He's making decisions as his character would make them (which is role-playing), and he's inventing details about the setting beyond the purview of what his character can actually control (which is a different activity, that is not role-playing).

The distinction is important to maintain, since the whole reason I would disallow the scenario in question is because of the something else. I run games where players only role-play, and never do that other thing. Without having sufficient language to distinguish between the two, there is no way to get my point across.