Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nugan" data-source="post: 3389930" data-attributes="member: 36335">This issue came up on the original thread as well, and I probably should have edited my topic to clarify the point. I'm definitely not proposing that just-for-fun role-playing is, by any means, wrong. Many people prefer to role-play for simple enjoyment,and they have every right to do so. I'm also definitely not arguing that there should be rules governing ffrping. Quite the opposite, if role-playing is an artform, composing a concrete set of rules or regulations would be like creating a list of regulations to govern how novels and poetry should be written or how art should be create. (Movements like post-modernism and abstract expressionism have effectively shown how absurd it is to try hold artists and writers to classic or traditional aesthetic standards.)My intent in creating this thread was just to attempt to answer a question that I've heard expressed frequently, explicitly and by implication, which is: What constitutes quality in role-playing? I also hoped to provoke a discussion about whether or not freeform role-playing could be considered an artform, or if it was almost unanimously still seen as a game.Anyway, I want to reply to Qidji, Shadow, and Kal, but I have to run at the moment, so I'll attempt to respond later this afternoon.</blockquote>