Gray's 1st Question(s)

[Arrowhawk]

Well, first you insisted that the "role" in role-playing was a character class.

Then you said it was the character, as if in a story.

Then you argued for the character class again.

Then, when I called you on it, you referred back to your post about it referring to the character in the story.

Now, when pressed, you insist that that's not what you meant.

Incorrect. I first suggested that the "role" referred to a functional role...then I realized it was more about being a character in a story. I have not changed my position on the latter. What has happened is that we have gotten on a tangent about importance of personality versus class in Dungeons & Dragons. Personalites are not required...classes are. That is wholly separate from why it is called a roleplaying game, or how other roleplaying games work.

The "role" in "role-playing" is the character, the persona you take on in the game.

Emphasis added.

I disagree. It has nothing to do with the "persona" but with the fact you play a "character." Your game piece is a character and that is why it's called roleplaying. If your game piece was a tank, it would not be called roleplaying because tank's aren't considered "characters." Battletech is not considered RPG even though there is a person (the pilot) inside your Mech. You can spin a whole story around your Mech and your pilot's piloting and combat skills can increase, but it's still not called an RPG. You can play your Mech with a blood lust or as cold and calculationg tactician, but it's still not an RPG. Battletech wasn't ever thought of as an an "RPG" until it included Mechwarrior. In Mechwarrior you play a "character" not a Mech.

Look, the differnce between our positions is subtle. I'm certain there are RPG's which focus on the "acting" aspect of roleplaying. And in some ways, it might even be a chicken vs the egg discussion. But you can have acting and personalities in how you play armored unit wargames and it still doesn't make them RPG's and you can play D&D devoid of personalty and acting and it is still a roleplaying game. What's true is that because you do have a "character" the game lends itself to the personality focus in a way other games don't.

I can accept an unwillingness on your part in separating the character from the idea you are playing a persona. By definition all characters have personalities...it's just that 1e D&D didn't actually require that you adopt a personality, nor was the game dependent on your persona like it was dependent on your functional role. Again, not related to why it's called roleplaying.

 

[Greenfield]

And if my game piece was a knight from a chess set? Could I be using a miniature tank to represent my heavily armored fighter?

I'm not playing the piece of lead (or plastic or chalk or whatever) on the battlemat.

But at least we're getting somewhere. We have a new definition from you (which you will no doubt disagree with in your next post).

I'll tell you what, when you get a coherent position on this subject, let us know. Until then, have a nice day.

 

[Arrowhawk]

And if my game piece was a knight from a chess set? Could I be using a miniature tank to represent my heavily armored fighter?

I'm not playing the piece of lead (or plastic or chalk or whatever) on the battlemat.

But at least we're getting somewhere. We have a new definition from you (which you will no doubt disagree with in your next post).

I'll tell you what, when you get a coherent position on this subject, let us know. Until then, have a nice day.

I can't help it if you have reading comprehension problems ...I really can't. The fact that you're talking about lead pieces on the battlemat says you're pretty much lost in this discussion.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

I can't help it if you have reading comprehension problems ...I really can't. The fact that you're talking about lead pieces on the battlemat says you're pretty much lost in this discussion.

He's replying specifically to a couple sentences:

Your game piece is a character and that is why it's called roleplaying. If your game piece was a tank, it would not be called roleplaying because tank's aren't considered "characters."

What Green's getting at is that a game piece only represents the character (and in many cases also its possessions and whatever vehicle it's piloting). The character itself is an abstract idea that the player created whose existence is not dependent on the game piece used to represent it. Chess could be made into a roleplaying game because each player could create 16 characters and play a conflict out using the game pieces to represent the characters. Roleplay isn't limited to just one character at a time after all.

 

[Dandu]

"What do you mean your bishop converts my king?"

 

[Arrowhawk]

He's replying specifically to a couple sentences:


What Green's getting at is that a game piece only represents the character (and in many cases also its possessions and whatever vehicle it's piloting). The character itself is an abstract idea that the player created whose existence is not dependent on the game piece used to represent it. Chess could be made into a roleplaying game because each player could create 16 characters and play a conflict out using the game pieces to represent the characters. Roleplay isn't limited to just one character at a time after all.

And this misses the point entirely and has nothing to do with why I used the word "gamepiece."

 

[Jackinthegreen]

And this misses the point entirely and has nothing to do with why I used the word "gamepiece."

Gonna keep that reason to yourself, or are you going to give a valid point by explaining why you used "gamepiece" that way?

And don't give us the crap "I've already explained it, I don't need to again." In a debate you are obligated to state your position again lest others think you are faltering or hand-waving. I'm quite sure I'm not the only one thinking you're hand-waving.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Perhaps we should take a look at how D&D itself defines character and role?

There is one simple sentence that makes it clear.
From the 3.5 PHB, page 4:
[FONT=&quot]

D&D® is a game of your imagination in which you participate... by taking on the role of a hero—a character you create.

[/FONT]

The character itself is the role the player plays. This makes sense both from a logical, common sense point of view as well as that of "RAW." Adding onto that, the character might play a role, but it is the character doing that and not the player. If it was the player playing the role then that's just plain breaking the fourth wall.

 

[kitcik]

This is silly, guys. Everyone roleplays differently and there is no right way. Even people in the same group can approach roleplaying differently and the game can still function.

 

[Greenfield]

Arrowhawk, somewhere between my "reading comprehension" and your ability to write comprehensibly, we have a disconnect, and I think it's actually intentional on your part.

We seem to agree that the "role" in "role-playing" is the character, the person we pretend to be in the game world. But every time we approach that agreement, you veer off. You seem determined not to admit to such an agreement, and keep making up wilder and wilder metaphors for the game to emphasize that disagreement.

I mean, I see your point about playing a part of a team. But that's not what the game was supposed to be. We can simply play "fighter" and work the mechanics, and the game does in fact require us to work the mechanics, but the game is much more than the mechanics, the "roll-play". If your game is simply about playing "fighter", then you are all the way back at Chainmail, with extremely small unit sizes, and I would have to wonder why you're on a role-playing forum at all.