Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 4753710" data-attributes="member: 3192">I agree with your reiteration.  Again, this isn't "my" definition of roleplaying.  This is the definition of "Roleplay Simulation" as it has stood for over 70 years.  Ask any teacher and they will back me up on this.  The term "Roleplay Simulation" as I may or may not have pointed out earlier in this thread was not brought into common usage until the 90s.  For a majority of Americans, I'd say especially those over 50, it is still the "true" definition of roleplaying as it was so predominate, while psychodramas were relatively unknown.  And this definition and revised term is still not well known as a second kind of roleplaying even to those who teach with it everyday.  Nevertheless, it is the type and definition of roleplaying from which roleplaying games were originally designed and launched.  ...on to you examples:1. Historical Reinactment falls under example B.2. Boffer LARPs are the same, but what isn't acted out isn't really roleplayed as most LARPers would probably agree.3. This includes learning in a role, but there is no game here.  This isn't an RPG per se. It is theatre. Successful roleplaying has no measure here.4. There are flight simulators which include roleplaying (check out the picture on Wikipedia's site under <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roleplaying" target="_blank">Roleplaying</a>), but the computer simulator portion is still just a computer simulation game.  Your example is a computer game, not an RPG.5. Again, these are computer simulation games.  Arcade games with prop guns where two players can talk to each other? Yes, that includes roleplaying quite clearly.  But those games are primarily simulation games6. These games are close to roleplaying, but no actions are being described to fit the role.  These games are accurately termed Manual Simulation games.  And don't require any roleplaying at all.  Even if a person acted like they were their "guy" that portrayal wouldn't have any game element to it.  There is no role success here and no RPGs.7. Free Form RPGs have varying definitions.  I'll assume you mean the Forge definition per your description.  In these games there may or may not be roleplaying, but there is no game. The GM is in the instructors role (Director).  Is this bad? I don't think so.  As long as the GM is accepted as the expert on the roles being performed. 8. Games like these as I explain in my previous post are actually pretty poorly designed to be roleplaying games.  The roles they define are, as often as not, not defined by the rules well at all.  Instead, there is a sort of generic game design attempting to define an entire world and every activity possible therein, but with no proof of performance for most any of those activities.  Where is the defining of roles in order to test the players performance of them?9. Most mainstream games are pretty obviously Example C. roleplaying games.  Design took a bad misstep with the inclusion of skills, but most games either qualify as RPGs or manual simulation games that could be played as RPGs if run properly (with the game behind a GM Screen, for one).  Also, as I stated before, speaking in the first person here isn't the roleplaying that is being measured for success by the games themselves.  Some may have a little finer detail, but most conversational roleplay is not defined with strictly defined rules.  I believe it would feel too scripted for most players if this were a role test.  10. "Indie" games, by which most folks mean Forge-based games, are games designed that may or may not be able to support some kinds of roleplay.  But, and it really depends on the game, often that potential for rolelpaying is strictly accidental to their design.  Pretty obviously Forge games are based upon the "Big Model", which uses what was until very recently a relatively unknown theatre-based definition of roleplaying to define its' games.  Bupkis is a fun word. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  And that's a fine opinion to hold, but this isn't "my" definition.  No opinion of preference or argument for or against how RPGs should be defined can negate the existence of real world definitions.  This isn't a theory being developed.  This is a definition of roleplaying that has held up since before World War II.</blockquote>

Verification