Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dromdol" data-source="post: 3661844" data-attributes="member: 53831">I am willing to accept your definition without qualification, however, I don't believe that it follows that MMORPGs are excluded in some way by your definition. Let's track your defining characteristics along with a play experience in an MMORPG (specifically mine, I'll use Lineage 2 as my reference point).1) When one role-plays it must be to an audience that will be able to respond in some fashion to that acting.While playing L2, I was an actor with a clear audience. My choices impacted not only myself, but those who were identified by guild tag as my allies. The audience had full range of response, including exclusion/inclusion from grouping, escalating all the way to declarations of inter-guild warfare. Leveling and high quality treasure zones were immensely contested, diplomacy was heated, and wars over prime territory were bitter and vicious. On the positive side, alliances were forged, friendships made, and cross-cultural communication made possible by a strange pidgin language. It meets your criteria as having actors and audience.2) When one engages in a RP Game, then the audience must react in game...This was quite so. Attempts to proceed on contested territory provoked a variety of responses - demands for payment, diplomacy, hostility, friendship, anger, all played out within the game both via chat and by direct action.3) ...respond to the actor, the acting by the player being activity that has an impact on the game's direction...Definitely present. A single person's actions often had a direct impact on the playing style and tone of the game. Castle's are capturable, city taxes variable based on ownership, leveling grounds "closable". Death is punitive and harsh, sometimes involving massive loss of experience, and running the risk of item destruction, representing hours of in-game investment. Diplomacy was a much better option than hostility in many cases, to avoid the penalties that rash behaviour could provoke. This lead to a shifting set of alliances that could turn and bite at any moment. You might think you knew your allies...4) ...and the environment within which it is set.The ability to control territories and zones, to impose taxation, to eliminate player competitions, all seem to me to be indicative of the ability to mold the environment. I'm not sure how many people play L2 these days (I've moved on), but certainly at it's heyday it had several million subscribers. With 3-4 thousand persons per world, there was ample opportunity to interact with other people as actor and as audience with direct, immediate impact on play-style and gameplay. There were people roleplaying thugs and villains, heroes and champions, leaders, and spies, and double-dealers, and assassins, diplomats, and liars...Doesn't this match your definition of Roleplaying? If not, why not?All MMORPGs have these qualities to some degree or another, and the person on the other side of that avatar IS your audience, and you ARE the actor. The roles are fluid, with everyone acting and participating in the audience simultaneously. Is it really the limitation that people must talk like Renaissance Faire rejects to roleplay? I mean, I don't summon demons, but I play a warlock in WoW, and other people react to my actions in meaningful ways. How is that less "roleplaying" than if I were at a table with them with a bowl of cheerios and a slice of cold pizza? Don't get me wrong, I like both, and I wouldn't give up the one for the other. I also know that important differences do exist, I just think that denying they meet your definition of "roleplaying" is forcing a false dichotomy.</blockquote>

Verification