Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7638743" data-attributes="member: 16814">I don't think this will make it ckearer because I think this discussion is mired a lot further back on the trail.I think [MENTION=6795602]FrogReaver[/MENTION]'s definition of roleplaying is for a player to imagine a character and then imagine how that character will act and declare actions accordingly.  This being fully under the control of the player is a hard requirement, so anything that interferes with a player doing the above is a hinderence to roleplaying.  This is why he doesn't consider acting to be roleplaying because that character wasn't imagined by the actor and the actor doesn't make choices for actions. Meanwhile, you (and me and others) see roleplaying in games as protraying the character however it comes to be.  There's a presumption that the player will be making most choices, but external changes are ok as well.  We see acting as roleplaying because the portrayal of tge character is up to the actor even if many/most choices are not. So, with this fundamental difference in definition, there's no way your questions make sense within [MENTION=6795602]FrogReaver[/MENTION]'s framework.  What I find interesting, though, is that he doesn't appear to see the genre/system limits that D&D imposes.I, of course, stand ready to be corrected on this by a functional definition of what frogreaver thinks roleplaying is that differs from the above.</blockquote>