Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 6419929" data-attributes="member: 85555">I don't think these kinds of definitions are particularly useful. I see them a lot in my circles and find them not to be descriptive of rpgs at all. Words are not defined by their roots. The root words can matter but terms change over time to go beyond the meanings of the compounds. I've seen dozens and dozens of definitions of RPG that take each individual term (Role-Playing-Game) define them and put them together. It doesn't matter what those individual components mean, what matters is what people mean when they say roleplaying game. Others have already pointed this out. English isn't latin and I think it is pretty obvious when the term was adopted it was a term of convenience, one that seemed to describe something fairly new and exotic going on at the table (but the people who first employed that term were not using RP in the full sense of the word as it was used in Psychology circles for example, and we would be foolish to think any working definition of RPG needs to also be therapeutic with the aim of reducing conflict simply because it shares a word with a psychological technique. In terms of whether you can define it as a game where you take on a role, I think people might not disagree but it really depends on what you mean by that. If you mean, to use your language, that being in pawn stance the whole time makes it not an RPG, I would disagree, because you are still a character in the setting, even if it is being informed by your metagame concerns. I've seen many players over the years play a character as if it was them, freely using player knowledge and desires in place of character knowledge and desires. It may have irked me because it isn't how I like to play, but I would never look at that and say the person isn't roleplaying. It is just one style of RP just like min/max, kick down the door, thespian, etc are all valid approaches to an RPG.</blockquote>

Verification