Players choose what their PCs do . . .

[Tony Vargas]

Of course. The term roleplay has a precise meaning.

It certainly does not. RPGs are just one meaning, and what is or is not an RPG is sometimes hotly debated. You have roleplay in contexts of TTRPGs, CRPG, MMO RPGs, as well as in clinical and *ahem* other contexts.

By giving it a precise meaning of your own choosing, you assume a conclusion about that debate. It's bad form. It proves nothing.


What you could do, is draw distinctions among different sorts and styles of RP. It's still going to be controversial, acrimonious, and accomplish nothing - just look at the Forge and GNS - but at least it won't be fallacious right out the gate.

 

[FrogReaver]

There are many games where no magic is involved and the GM is not only expected to inform PC response, but is required to do so.

Then those games have a non-role playing mechanic. Nothing wrong with that. But that's what it is.

Pendragon has a major portion of a character definition be the PC's relationship with a set of paired virtues and vices. The PC is exposed to tests of a virtue or vice and the GM is expected to have the PC react according to how well or poorly the test has handled:

If the GM declares the player's action then it's not a role playing mechanic. That is, the mechanic in question is taking the players ability to roleplay away in that specific situation.

Fantasy Wargaming is another RPG with a series of personality tests designed to represent temptation, loyalty, and social pecking order in an adventuring group.

I'm not familiar with the game, but if it requires the GM to dictate the PC's actions then it's not roleplaying.

Other games have morale rules which may dictate how the PCs act under duress.

If it actually makes the PC do something then it's not roleplaying.

With all that said, if a game has one of those not roleplaying mechanics above but 99% of all the other game mechanics were role playing mechanics then I'm calling that a role playing game.

 

[FrogReaver]

It certainly does not. RPGs are just one meaning, and what is or is not an RPG is sometimes hotly debated. You have roleplay in contexts of TTRPGs, CRPG, MMO RPGs, as well as in clinical and *ahem* other contexts.

By giving it a precise meaning of your own choosing, you assume a conclusion about that debate. It's bad form. It proves nothing.

By not adopting a precise meaning you can never prove anything. There's no real debate going on until ya'll either adopt a definition or agree to debate about what the proper definition should be.

What you could do, is draw distinctions among different sorts and styles of RP. It's still going to be controversial, acrimonious, and accomplish nothing - just look at the Forge and GNS - but at least it won't be fallacious right out the gate.

Or you could define roleplay the proper way as I have done and then analyze the mechanics in question as I have been doing to determine if they are roleplaying mechanics or not - which is really the only proper way to have a debate about such things in the first place.

 

[Tony Vargas]

By not adopting a precise meaning you can never prove anything. There's no real debate going on until ya'll either adopt a definition or agree to debate about what the proper definition should be.

And has everyone bought into your TRUE Roleplaying definition? No. So you're jump'n the gun there, aren't you.

The elements you're trying to pretend aren't roleplaying are a common feature of storytelling styles, which, back in the 90s, had proponents insisting that such was the One True Way to ROLEplay, and that anything else was inferior ROLLplaying.

And, really, what's to prove? Some games give players and GMs more of the same tools, others segregate their tools, some - very old & popular - give prettymuch all the tools to the DM. Those are differences, but they don't make one sort more properly an RPG than another.

Analyze those differences if you like, but don't pretend one is more legitimately RP by just arbitrarily defining it as such.

If you need that kind of high ground to make your point, you must have very little confidence in the strength of whatever actual argument you may have.

 

[FrogReaver]

The current vibe i'm getting is that any mechanic in a game called a roleplaying game must be a roleplaying mechanic and that's simply not the case. To then come out and vocally make the assertion that such is not the case is then viewed somehow as being One True Wayism. - which is absurd.

We should all be able to agree that not every mechanic in a roleplaying game is a roleplaying mechanic. Once you get to that point then the question is - which mechanics aren't roleplaying mechanics? That's when you had better be able to actually define what you mean by roleplaying.

I've defined what I mean by it. Does anyone have a better definition than mine?

 

[Nagol]

Then those games have a non-role playing mechanic. Nothing wrong with that. But that's what it is.



If the GM declares the player's action then it's not a role playing mechanic. That is, the mechanic in question is taking the players ability to roleplay away in that specific situation.



I'm not familiar with the game, but if it requires the GM to dictate the PC's actions then it's not roleplaying.



If it actually makes the PC do something then it's not roleplaying.

With all that said, if a game has one of those not roleplaying mechanics above but 99% of all the other game mechanics were role playing mechanics then I'm calling that a role playing game.

They are role playing mechanics - the games just model that a person's impulse responses may not match their ideals. The reason the players are removed from the PC response is because there are defined mechanics that are checked to determine behaviour in certain circumstances. "I'd never steal money!" "Well, there's a bag of unattended money in front of you..." "I shouldn't have taken the $30,000! Now what do I do!!?!?"

Champions/Hero System has a related set of mechanics where the player defines specific personality issues for a PC and is constrained to play within them. The more extreme the reaction, the less player control can be exercised when they are triggered.

Players need not have complete control of their PC on a role playing game. Indeed, if there are any mechanical systems for social interaction or strong emotion then almost by definition the players cannot have complete control.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Does anyone have a better definition than mine?

Starting with no definition at all is better. Since "what constitutes roleplaying?" is clearly part of the question, the definition is something you might have at the end.

Though, honestly, good luck with that.

The current vibe i'm getting is that any mechanic in a game called a roleplaying game must be a roleplaying mechanic and that's simply not the case.

Why would that not be the case? I mean, you're trying to RP a character. Defining that character is surely part of that. How NPCs react to that character could well be among the things that define it.

 

[FrogReaver]

And has everyone bought into your TRUE Roleplaying definition?

If they really don't know what roleplaying means by now then they ought to.

No. So you're jump'n the gun there, aren't you.

Nope. I'm establishing the framework for using the definition I've proposed.

The elements you're trying to pretend aren't roleplaying are a common feature of storytelling styles, which, back in the 90s, had proponents insisting that such was the One True Way to ROLEplay, and that anything else was inferior ROLLplaying.

Does anyone take their arguments seriously anymore? I think currently in the 21st century we've all agreed that roleplaying games and cooperative story games are different things.

And, really, what's to prove? Some games give players and GMs more of the same tools, others segregate their tools, some - very old & popular - give prettymuch all the tools to the DM. Those are differences, but they don't make one sort more properly an RPG than another.

You seem to be taking my statement as if not being an RPG is inferior to being an RPG. It's not. All are equals. -No wonder these discussions always spiral into nothingness.

Analyze those differences if you like, but don't pretend one is more legitimately RP by just arbitrarily defining it as such.

Of course one is roleplaying while the other isn't. That you can't bear to actually let a definition speak for itself is the very problem I'm here trying to solve.

If you need that kind of high ground to make your point, you must have very little confidence in the strength of whatever actual argument you may have.

Let's start simple. Can an RPG contain non-RPG elements, or does an element being part of an RPG always make it an RPG element?

 

[FrogReaver]

They are role playing mechanics - the games just model that a person's impulse responses may not match their ideals. The reason the players are removed from the PC response is because there are defined mechanics that are checked to determine behaviour in certain circumstances.

I understand why such is being done. It's because we don't trust players to actually roleplay their PC's. That's fine. But we don't need to act like a mechanic created solely to remove a player's ability to roleplay their PC is actually a roleplaying mechanic...

Champions/Hero System has a related set of mechanics where the player defines specific personality issues for a PC and is constrained to play within them. The more extreme the reaction, the less player control can be exercised when they are triggered.

Right. We constrain players within the rules to only play their characters a certain way.... that's not being done to enable them to roleplay, but rather to prevent them from it.

Players need not have complete control of their PC on a role playing game.

Your getting the concept of a roleplaying game and roleplaying mixed up. A roleplaying game can have non-roleplaying rules and mechanics. We label it roleplaying because many of it's rules and mechanics enable roleplaying, but that doesn't mean all have to.

Indeed, if there are any mechanical systems for social interaction or strong emotion then almost by definition the players cannot have complete control.

Just because a roleplaying game uses such systems doesn't mean those systems are roleplaying elements of the game...

 

[FrogReaver]

Starting with no definition at all is better. Since "what constitutes roleplaying?" is clearly part of the question, the definition is something you might have at the end.

But what is currently being done is - people are starting with games labeled role playing games and then attributing any and all mechanics in them as roleplaying mechanics. Then they want to define roleplaying based on those findings. You see the flaw in that right?

Why would that not be the case? I mean, you're trying to RP a character. Defining that character is surely part of that.

Sure, presumably you are trying to roleplay some specific character you have created. So suppose you want the lady charmer. In 5e terms a high charisma accomplishes that. In a more free form RPG you may not even have stats. Simply the way the GM has NPC's react to your PC may provide the basis for that reality. That doesn't mean you get specific control to ever charm any 1 specific lady. The GM still determines if a particular lady is able to be charmed by you and how to resolve it if the outcome is uncertain.

How NPCs react to that character could well be among the things that define it.

Sure. In a roleplaying game it would be the GM's responsibility to have NPC's react in accordance to your character. If the GM found there to be uncertainty then he would also determine the process used to resolve that uncertainty.