Would you allow this?

[Satyrn]

Do we really need to do this?

I don't even want to do this. I did need to snag the Gretzky post to celebrate Canada Day, though.

 

[Joebing69]

Definitely would allow it. That player thinks outside the box. I like that.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

That's a philosophical point. Giving players control over elements of the story their characters don't have control over is built into the mechanics of some RPGs, such as the Fantasy Flight Star Wars RPG.

Think of it as collaborative story-telling, rather than role playing, if you prefer.

Yes, I am familiar with the distinction. I enjoy role-playing. I do not enjoy collaborative story-telling. I would not have fun, by playing FFG Star Wars.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

No. He's claiming that one true way is roleplaying and the other isn't. Yes, there is a distinction, and if he just stated that he preferred his method roleplaying, that would be fine. We all have our preferences about how we like to play the game. When he declares that the others are not roleplaying because of that difference, though, he has crossed the line.

I'm not using jargon, here. These are just normal words. "Role-playing" is the name which is given to the act of imagining yourself to be someone else, just like "dice-rolling" is the name which is given to the act of rolling dice.

If a game uses a card-draw mechanic as a randomizer instead of rolling dice, then you aren't dice-rolling when you draw a card. If you use some other mechanic to determine what happens next, aside from imagining yourself to be your character, then you aren't role-playing when you do that. You can't force a card to become a die through the act of labelling it as such.

You might be role-playing at other points during the game, though, just like you can have a game that uses both card-draw and dice-rolling mechanics. Personally, I prefer games that only involve role-playing, rather than a game which mixes role-playing and other narrative-generation methods; just like a prefer games that use only dice, to games that use both dice and cards.

Edit: If you're getting hung up on the terminology, we could say "actor stance" and "director stance"; and I wouldn't allow the example because I prefer characters to stay in "actor stance" while playing. I'm not a huge fan of that terminology, personally, because it implies that the character isn't a real person, and it's important to me that the players imagine their characters to be real people while playing them (rather than just story constructs, with plot armor and all that baggage).

 

[Greg K]

I need to append my original answer. While I would allow the character to regrow its wings, if the character simply narrated it without discussing it with me first, I would tell them that, next time, they need to verify it me with first and then explain why I am allowing it in this instance.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I need to append my original answer. While I would allow the character to regrow its wings, if the character simply narrated it without discussing it with me first, I would tell them that, next time, they need to verify it me with first and then explain why I am allowing it in this instance.

Oh, sure. I didn't explicitly say it in my example, but I would assume the player would say, "Hey, can I do this?"

 

[Maxperson]

You might be role-playing at other points during the game, though, just like you can have a game that uses both card-draw and dice-rolling mechanics. Personally, I prefer games that only involve role-playing, rather than a game which mixes role-playing and other narrative-generation methods; just like a prefer games that use only dice, to games that use both dice and cards.

They are roleplaying at the moment they narrate what their characters do and why, even if they are using other additions to that roleplaying. Thank you for finally acknowledging that.

Edit: If you're getting hung up on the terminology, we could say "actor stance" and "director stance"; and I wouldn't allow the example because I prefer characters to stay in "actor stance" while playing. I'm not a huge fan of that terminology, personally, because it implies that the character isn't a real person, and it's important to me that the players imagine their characters to be real people while playing them (rather than just story constructs, with plot armor and all that baggage).

I don't really care about the various stances. Just as I don't really care for players adding those sorts of details themselves. There are different ways to roleplay, and different additions to roleplaying that you can play with. They just do it differently than you and I do.

 

[jaelis]

No. He's claiming that one true way is roleplaying and the other isn't. Yes, there is a distinction, and if he just stated that he preferred his method roleplaying, that would be fine. We all have our preferences about how we like to play the game. When he declares that the others are not roleplaying because of that difference, though, he has crossed the line.

I can see both sides of this. On the one hand, it is pretty reasonable to define role playing specifically as "playing a role" in the normal sense. Saelorn's definition is probably what a non-gamer would expect the term to mean.

On the other hand, the term has broadened in meaning to encompass all sorts of things you do when you play a role-playing game. There are many different but perfectly legitimate styles of play that fit into that category.

But given the community we're all in, it's probably safer to assume people here will interpret the term broadly, so be careful how you use it.

 

[Maxperson]

I can see both sides of this. On the one hand, it is pretty reasonable to define role playing specifically as "playing a role" in the normal sense. Saelorn's definition is probably what a non-gamer would expect the term to mean.

On the other hand, the term has broadened in meaning to encompass all sorts of things you do when you play a role-playing game. There are many different but perfectly legitimate styles of play that fit into that category.

But given the community we're all in, it's probably safer to assume people here will interpret the term broadly, so be careful how you use it.

The meaning has broadened for sure, but even with his limited definition, the person narrating additional details is still roleplaying. [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] finally acknowledged that himself and stated that he prefers his way over the other, which is fine. We all have our preferences and I also prefer games without player narration of details as in the scarf example up thread.

 

[jaelis]

Heh, if you google the definition of role-playing, both meanings are right there:

1. the acting out of the part of a particular person or character, for example as a technique in training or psychotherapy.
2. participation in a role-playing game.

Saelorn was using definition 1 and saying that's what he prefers. But that doesn't mean definition 2 is invalid, and I don't think anyone ever meant to imply differently.