Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 6415987" data-attributes="member: 85555">But what is the purpose of defining from the middle? What are we attempting to achieve? What is the utility? Clearly the hobby also includes lots of people who don't spend a single second thinking what their character would do and just roll skills, on the other end arepeople who don't worry about characterization but just play as if they are their character...yet in all these cases something is still going on at the table that constitutes a roleplaying game. Something about the structure of play still makes it RPG in my view (even when someone is just basically playing themselves). I do agree, some things are clearly not RPGs (like bridge or jump rope), there is an &quot;I know it when I see it&quot; element. But stuff that lots of people still view as roleplaying (i.e. playing my character straight from the sheet or playing myself) shouldn't be excluded from a definition of what the hobby. Those are valid ways to approach the game. I don't see why that suddenly makes it not a roleplaying game. Heck in the early days of RPGs tons of people basically just played themselves, there was even a variant skill system in the 2E PHB for having the player and character share the same sets of skills (what you know, your character knows). I don't think we should define these players away, nor should we define away games intended to cater to them. Calling those RPGs, does nothing detrimental to the hobby. What is detrimental to the hobby is setting up arbitrary lines that people are not supposed to cross if they still want to call themselves RPG players (I used to believe those lines myself, but I think they just constrain what we allow ourselves to enjoy).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 6415987, member: 85555"] But what is the purpose of defining from the middle? What are we attempting to achieve? What is the utility? Clearly the hobby also includes lots of people who don't spend a single second thinking what their character would do and just roll skills, on the other end arepeople who don't worry about characterization but just play as if they are their character...yet in all these cases something is still going on at the table that constitutes a roleplaying game. Something about the structure of play still makes it RPG in my view (even when someone is just basically playing themselves). I do agree, some things are clearly not RPGs (like bridge or jump rope), there is an "I know it when I see it" element. But stuff that lots of people still view as roleplaying (i.e. playing my character straight from the sheet or playing myself) shouldn't be excluded from a definition of what the hobby. Those are valid ways to approach the game. I don't see why that suddenly makes it not a roleplaying game. Heck in the early days of RPGs tons of people basically just played themselves, there was even a variant skill system in the 2E PHB for having the player and character share the same sets of skills (what you know, your character knows). I don't think we should define these players away, nor should we define away games intended to cater to them. Calling those RPGs, does nothing detrimental to the hobby. What is detrimental to the hobby is setting up arbitrary lines that people are not supposed to cross if they still want to call themselves RPG players (I used to believe those lines myself, but I think they just constrain what we allow ourselves to enjoy). [/QUOTE]

Verification