Gray's 1st Question(s)

[Arrowhawk]

I suggested that as well, using a tank figure to represent a heavy fighter. He didn't like it.

If you've been feigning stupidity with statements like this...then you got me.

 

[Greenfield]

You know, throughout this long exchange, I've never gotten personally insulting.

And despite the temptation, I won't do it now either.

But I might suggest that you take a look at your other posts. You know, the ones you didn't choose to quote. You've been all over the field on this topic, and the only consistency in your position has been that you didn't like mine.

You cited one short quote clipped from one post per page. Now maybe those really are representative of your position, but the fact is that you've thrown in an awful lot of white noise.

I tried to move past the meaningless chest thumping session and get back to giving topical, constructive suggestions. Consider doing the same.

 

[Arrowhawk]

You know, throughout this long exchange, I've never gotten personally insulting.

And despite the temptation, I won't do it now either.

But I might suggest that you take a look at your other posts. You know, the ones you didn't choose to quote. You've been all over the field on this topic, and the only consistency in your position has been that you didn't like mine.

You cited one short quote clipped from one post per page. Now maybe those really are representative of your position, but the fact is that you've thrown in an awful lot of white noise.

I tried to move past the meaningless chest thumping session and get back to giving topical, constructive suggestions. Consider doing the same.

Making statements that my posts arn't coherent and then adding a "have a nice day" on the end of it is decidedly asinine. Not to mention using colorful phrases like "throw a tantrum" when nothing is further from the truth. You're just wrong about your assertions..nothing more nothing less. I've maintained the same position since page 4. Yet, you keep insisting I'm changing my position because you can't seem to follow your own train of thought...you know the one where you keep telling me that a persona is what D&D is all about and that D&D wasn't about playing in party? Remember those posts of yours?

The fact that you can't understand my using references to other PnP games and the idea that your character is essentially a virtual gamepiece is mind boggling. I can only assume you're playing some game and intentionally feigning stupidity when you start talking about "lead" game pieces. If you really can't seem to figure out that we've been having two separate discussions about whether a persona is the linchpin of D&D and whether it is the reason D&D is called a roleplaying game...then I suggest you work on your own coherency issues rather than malign others.

 

[kitcik]

Straw man!

We likes it!

 

[kitcik]

As an aside: I thought tanks were characters? Or, at least, a party role.

This.

 

[Dandu]

Also, now that I think about it, this:

 

[Gray Lensman]

This.

Thats CUTE!

 

[Greenfield]

Same position since page 4?

I think most people think this. I think most people think it's called "role" playing simply because they are acting differently. But that ignores the actual word "role." I submit that it originally started from the concept of you play a "role" and that role is determined by the class. In other words, you are playing at being a Dwarven Fighter or Elven Magic User. Your role is the role of the Fighter. You are encouraged to act, not as yourself, but as such a character might act.

Also...

The game works when Igor Thud chooses a role. If Igor Thud and his companions don't choose one of the classes available, there can be no game. Igor Thud can do nothing in D&D. Igor Thud the Fighter can. The original game of D&D required that peole play a role not a personality. Without a "Fighter" to fight things, the game has no meaning and can't function.

So at that point you were pretty solidly fixed on the idea that the "role" was the class, and the slot you filled in the party. Igor Thud wasn't the role you played, but rather "fighter" was the role that Igor played.

That was post 54 in the thread. You continued on this line in post 57 (also on Page 4). Then, in an edit to that post...

EDIT
It occurs to me that we may both be slightly off the mark. The term roleplaying may be used because you play a "character" who is part of a story. So it's not really about the role/function you play nor is it that you are supposed to be "acting."

That was your first change in direction, when you posted something that agreed with what I'd said.

I even said so in post 63, Page 5:

I'm not at all clear on the difference between "playing a character in a story" and "acting". On the surface, it looks like you just started agreeing with me.

Then in post 69 you reversed field again.

1. You're missing the forest while looking at the trees. I'm talking about all the roles that constiute what one does in the game. Killing, opening locks, healing people who got hurt fighting or opening locks/traps. I just uses Fighting as a repesentative of those things. Are you watching Deadliest Warrior again?

2. Yes...after 1e they did all kinds of things. I'm talking about the core aspect of what D&D was about when it was created. Now, the idea of roles and classes is almost meaningless.

3. Read #2.

It's not really even debatable that D&D was invented around what the classes would do: Fighting, thievery, and spell casting. Nor is it a point of debate that the game has evolved beyond those early rigid constraints.

So you were now backing away from "playing a character who is part of a story", and returning to filling a slot in a party.

In post 71 you started comparing D&D to 1st person shooters, and concluded that the difference is in how the story is presented to the player, as opposed me thinking that it's how the player contributed to the story.

In post 76 I said...

I guess my point in the "which classes" question was to make it clear that class selection has exactly zero impact on most story decisions.

At which point you went back to arguing that class selection was the key factor, since mechanically the game required classes. That was post 77, so now you're solidly back to arguing the slot in the team, the character class, rather than the character.

As I've mentioned several times...In 1e, the specific class chosen is not important so far as some class is chosen. A good DM will create an adventure that is suited to the class choices made by the players. But in 1e, characters have to choose a class...no exceptions.

After that I took an admitedly mocking tone, asking if we might be playing the dice, since they were also required, before pointing out that there are many systems that are skill and/or point based, and use neither classes nor levels.

In post 81, you then said...

Scroll back about six or seven posts where I realized it's called a roleplaying game mainly because you play a "character" in a story, as opposed to a vehicle or an inanimate object in a story.

Ask yourself, Is "Myst" a roleplaying game...and if not...why? Don't you play a character in a story?

Now you're going back to saying that you're playing a character in a story, a 180 degree shift from your most recent posts. This is also where you began to bring in Myst, which is best described as a 1st-person non-shooter game.

The simple fact is, even as you disavow claiming that the "role" is the slot in the team, you reverse field and defend that stance every time it comes up.

Look at post 85, if you need to see more of that in your own words.

After that it came down to mincing words. You were determined not to be in agreement with me, so you picked at me referring to the character as a "persona" that you played. (Post 91, Page 7).

You muddied the field a bit when you argued that you're playing a game piece, but then qualified that as to which game piece you could or couldn't play. Again I took a mocking tone in my response, which I probably shouldn't have. But the replies from others made it pretty clear that I wasn't the only one who thought your position was, at the very least, poorly expressed. (See posts 94 and 95). It also inspired some nice grapics (thanks Dandu and Kitcik).

Over all you've fluttered back and forth between two positions, and appeared to delve into a third, at least in what you've written. Maybe you intended a more constant presentation, but you haven't actually done that.

My position? Pretty much the same as it's always been. I think that role playing means to play a role, like a character in a book or play, with the distinction being that you are also the author of your own dialogue, and a contributing author to the story itself.

If you agree with this then we're done. If you have another view, please state it clearly, and we'll proceed from there. But no matter what else, let's try to proceed civilly. I'll try to cut out the mocking tone if you'll stop the insults. Deal?

 

[Arrowhawk]

Greenfield, based on your quotes in the above post, I believe you have some reading comprehension issues. I don't mean this to be rude or snarky, but just an observation. Your choice of quotes to make a point fails to consider what was being responded to.

For like the umpteenth time, you started and insisted on continuing this tangential debate on the importance of a "persona" to D&D versus a "class." Such a discussion has nothing to dow with why D&D is called roleplaying. You have repeatedly taking my refutation of your assertion as to the nature of D&D as responses to the question of "why" and then insisted that I'm changing my position.

I think that role playing means to play a role, like a character in a book or play, with the distinction being that you are also the author of your own dialogue, and a contributing author to the story itself.

Your own definition is incoherent in that you claim anything that is a "railroad" isn't roleplaying. Well guess what...a play is a railroad. Actors in a play aren't giving any decisions to make are they? They simply act out one of the characters whose actions are dictated to them. By your own words, this is a "railroad" and isn't roleplaying. Guess what, being a character in a play is roleplaying...it's just not a game.

If you have another view, please state it clearly

It's been stated clearly, several times and at every time you've failed to either read it or comprehend it. You want it again, go read post #71 and then #85. If you still think we are saying the same thing, then it's because you've modified your position or you weren't clear on your position to begin with.

At this point I'm done with the thread as I'm not adding anything new just repeating myself over and over. If you wan't to continue off-line, feel free.

 

[Dandu]

I see your straw man and raise you a Proof by Assertion