Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 4753703" data-attributes="member: 3192">And that is a laudable endeavor.  The reason why this is difficult is because of an attempt in the hobby to redefine roleplaying, not just the word, but also the design of games, gamplay, and the hobby itself.  My comments aren't any reflection on you efforts here.  What's rough is there is a kind of game that has routinely been called an RPG, a manual simulation game, that fits neither definition too well.  In all honesty, I don't mind at all if there is a kind of miniatures simulation game published under the RPG title.  The difficulty is no one I believe, of either philosophical bent, when put to brass tacks will accede that manual simulation games require roleplaying to play them.  They aren't all that bad, in truth.  And plentiful in the hobby for a long time now too.You know, I think you are right.  I was trying to be as broad as possible in my definition to qualify any roleplaying game under the roleplay simulation definition, but in a tabletop setting that would require a proof of knowledge without referring to rules behind the screen.  I don't want to quibble.  I was simply trying to include LARPs and non-hobby roleplaying, which qualify without the rules necessarily being hidden.  These would be those that fit into the repairman examples under type B.  The actions are known, but their success requires the physical performance of such.Roles are improved by the performance of them.  That's pretty much a given.  Could they be book learned before they are performed? Of course.  Can that book learning refer to the rules in a tabletop RPG?  Not without altering the game into a simulation game rather than a roleplaying game.  (BTW, the instructor [Director] position is the one the rules are in for TRPGs. The instructor I referenced was not an in-game character).In your Sci-Fi example, the technical specifications would be in role descriptions even if the math corresponded to the rules.  Yes, this is a case where the underlying relationships would be pretty obvious to see.  But only if the game world tech-specs were accurate and unbiased.  The real specs could be different.  Learning to not necessarily trust the specs could be one aspect of learning to play the role.In the telephone repairperson example, yes, I suspect most roleplaying is learned from multiple sources.  That doesn't mean roleplaying isn't acting out the role.  Repeating back simulation rules describing a role isn't the same as repeating back the necessary steps to perform a role.  It's close, I'll give you.  But it's a dividing line between roleplaying and simulation playing.I've just highlighted the parts where I think there is a confusion here.  I'm not saying no to roleplaying, but no to them being games.  Judge GMs are certainly Directors in a roleplay.  But as many on the Forge and other sites would also claim, it's not a game.  Is that bad?  I don't think so.  But I feel it is important to be accurate here.To the last question there, saying "not applicable" or "okay, whatever" are fine answers to any attempted action not covered under the rules.  The rules are there to test the role, not things outside of it.  To the first sentence, all roleplaying that is acted out in a simulation (rather than the real world) includes elements that are not roleplayed.  Anything that is not actually performed is not roleplayed and theatre, by it's very nature, is cut off from the real world.  In fairness, I don't want to get this thread closed under the "edition warz" rubric because we are analyzing 4E, so let's look at this example from a skill-based game design in general.  Skill checks are not roleplaying as they never require a person succeed through explanation.  They are like Attitude Adjustment checks with used to speak with NPCs.  The discourse may be acted out, but the quality of discourse isn't tested.  As such, it isn't the part of the roleplaying that is properly gamed.  It is simply the decision to take an action that is showing proof of proficiency.  In a skill system no action need show such proof, so those elements are need not be gamed. Could a person use a prop? Like a broken telephone? Sure, but most DMs don't bring locks and trapped treasure chests to the table to be bested by the players' own hands.Roleplaying games are performance game.  If relayed description is the only "performance" given, then "I pick the lock" doesn't count.  That portion of the performance is abstracted.  Therefore the role performance must be happening according to other definers or on a less detailed level.  (Most games use a less detailed level).To end the skill example, think of GURPS.  If I were to create a surgeon, in what way to I learn and/or display my ability to do surgery?  As GURPS is primarily a skill-based game, that element is never roleplayed.  Whatever else is being tested in my roleplaying a surgeon, it isn't the performance of surgery itself.</blockquote>

Verification