Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7622766" data-attributes="member: 4937">Nor is it merely a preference and subjective just because you claim it is so.   Even the very definition of role-playing suggests a strong and natural connection between acting and the act of role-playing: "the acting out of the part of a particular person or character, for example as a technique in training or psychotherapy"  To suggest therefore that this connection is therefore only a preference, and not in some way closely connected to the act of role-playing and in particular to the degree and quality of the role-playing requires a very high burden of proof on your part.   At the very least, you have to address the argument I have developed showing why it was the "superior form of role-playing" (as you put it).   And though I'm not one, I'm inclined to think that a therapist or an occupational trainer would agree and encourage the more immersive, more literal experience, for much the same reasons that I've outlined.   For one thing, when you are applying role-play to train a person for some real life experience, you need that person to act as much as they would in real life as possible.Likewise, "it's possible to strongly empathize with a character without acting in first person -- ie, a character may be fully and faithfully represented in the 3rd person.", may in fact be true, but it in no way is a counter claim to what I've said.  Empathizing with a character isn't what is at stake in the argument.   I can fully empathize with a character in a novel or a movie, and yet I think we both agree that no role-playing is going on while I watch a movie or read a novel.   You can empathize all you want, but the more you actually act out the role, the more you are role-playing by definition.   I'm not going to draw a hard line and say, "Oh, for this little amount of acting you are no longer roleplaying."   But I am going to insist that the more you act, the more you are actually role-playing and that such a line where insufficient acting occurs to call it role-playing exists, otherwise everything is role-playing. Agreed, but that statement doesn't demonstrate your claim, but mine."Well, that's just like your opinion, man.", is itself something you have to prove.Look, I'm well aware that this argument makes people uncomfortable.  You are correct that role-playing skill is not equally distributed, and everyone who plays is sensitive about their ability to role-play and no one likes to think that they are less of a role-player than someone else.  Groups are in certain comfort zones and have ways of doing things, and that's fine so far as it goes.  But we're adults in this room, and it's time to recognize that though we certainly shouldn't be judging anyone for lack of skill in role-play, we should always be nurturing and encouraging growth in skillful play just as actors want to be better actors, athletes want to be better athletes, and chess players want to be better chess players. No it doesn't, and no it isn't.  If you'll have read my argument up to this point, it ought to be especially obvious why neither statement is true.</blockquote>

Verification