The Forge Archives

I'm a new poster to this site.  I recently ran up against an alarming reaction at the site I normally frequent, which has rather depressed me about the state of excellence (or lack thereof) in the roleplaying hobby.  So my intention is to summarize my comments here, and compare the responses.

In response to a question about the amount of roleplaying people normally engage in at the game table, I defined roleplaying as in-character dialogue and soliloquy, as well as the movements necessary to properly and proportionally supplement that verbal content.  Third-person description of the action in roleplaying games does not in itself constitute roleplaying - such descriptions are a necessary adjunct to roleplaying, however.

In other words, to say "I tell the guards to lay down their arms" is not roleplaying.  That, to me, would be storytelling - recounting imaginary events.  To roleplay, that is, to play a role in a game of verbal drama, is to speak in character.  Sometimes you have to explain what your character is doing out of character, but that again is only an adjunct to actual roleplaying.

Roleplaying is specifically different from storytelling.  It is also specifically different from miniatures wargaming, or boardgaming.  Though many seem to treat roleplaying games as boardgames without boards.  Would you play tennis without rackets?  It would seem to be needlessly hobbling oneself...

There were a host of objections raised by the squawking crows at rpg.net.  They were mostly:
1.  I can't act.
[That's no excuse.  In the hobby of skiing, some people are awkward and clumsy.  Those are poor skiers.  Such is the way in any pursuit - some can do it well, others poorly.  But if it is worth doing, it presents a challenge.]
2.  Acting is stupid because many people do it poorly.
[Hopefully this statement destroys itself.  If acting is stupid per se, then you shouldn't be roleplaying.  If it's only that many people do it wrong, that's only an indication that it is hard.]
3.  I am morally bankrupt for suggesting that roleplaying actually has a definition, or that it is something which it is possible to do incorrectly.
[Besides the fact that this is exactly the kind of fuzzy thinking which keeps the bourgeoisie in power, has destroyed the Left in my homeland (since 90% of people who think they're Leftists are really Rightist Keynesian neoliberals in disguise... they just don't have enough intellectual rigor to figure this out) and enables Britney Spears to outsell Mahler's Ninth Symphony by about a billion to one, it's quite unsound.]
4.  If I think in-character, and choose for my character to do what I think it would do in real life, that suffices to be roleplaying.
[Thinking in character contributes nothing to the game, which is a shared phantasy, per se.  If these thoughts are wholly internal, your audience (the other players) will have no knowledge of it.  You're playing to your audience, not yourself.  So for thoughts, intentions, inner struggles, etc. to be useful additions to the roleplaying experience, they must be communicated to your audience.  If you communicate them by narration, you're storytelling.  If you communicate them by in-character dialogue, you're roleplaying.]

I think a lot of the animosity I got on the other board (leaving aside the question of whether it is choked with philistines) derives from the fact that a lot of people actually can't act.  But they still want to be roleplayers and think of themselves as doing it well.  But look... no matter how bad he wants it, no matter how much it means to him, Steve Hawking is never going to be a champion marathon runner.  He can't run a marathon at all.  That doesn't mean he's a bad person, or inferior... in fact he's quite an excellent human being in many respects.  However, if he drove his chair in circles for a few minutes and said he just ran a marathon, he's incorrect.  No matter how much you like the guy, there's no reason to tolerate false statements.  When something is incorrect, that should be observed.  If something is attempted, even if it is recreation, and the performance is poor, that too should be observed.  This ethos is called honesty.

Unfortunately, I think that the fantastical nature of the roleplaying art draws in a lot of escapists, particularly social misfits who seek empowerment in the fictional worlds which form our stage.  So they really don't want to hear that roleplaying is a definite thing, which requires intellect and talent.  Though if this pursuit is to be taken seriously as art, I think perhaps we'll have to give the layabouts their walking papers.

So, I'm interested to see what the reaction will be to what I have to say.  I'm not sure if the reaction I received previously was due to the nature of things, or only of the venue.

I think you're probably right (or close to it) in your description of roleplaying.  However, a roleplaying game is more than just roleplaying so that may be why you're getting the antagonism.

I think assuming character voice is a good and admirable thing, and I try to do it as much as possible.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that it is required for participation in a role-playing game.

I have known plenty o' gamers that rarely if ever assume character voice, but who still manage to create atmospheric, sometimes even powerful stories. I wouldn't want to say that those folks were "bad" role-players--after all, they enjoy their hobby.

I do think that it is harder to connect to the game in third person. And I think it's obvious that such players are probably incompatible with your play style (and mine for that matter).

Hi Philomousos

I'm afraid that I'm not going to be much help

Quote...I defined roleplaying as in-character dialogue and soliloquy, as well as the movements necessary to properly and proportionally supplement that verbal content. Third-person description of the action in roleplaying games does not in itself constitute roleplaying -...

Because I disagree with this definition of roleplaying. I would go into it, but I'm not sure you necessarily want me to...so I'll leave it there for now.

Quote from: coxcombI wouldn't go so far as to say that it is required for participation in a role-playing game.

Jay, he didn't say that it was.  He said it was required for roleplaying.

Quote from: quozl

Quote from: coxcombI wouldn't go so far as to say that it is required for participation in a role-playing game.

Jay, he didn't say that it was.  He said it was required for roleplaying.

Hmm. Sorry. The way I read the initial post, I thought he was saying that roleplaying (as defined by assuming character) was the whole point of the hobby, and that those who didn't do it were not good at playing the game. My interpretation, and as interpretations are inclined, maybe it was off the mark.

Hi Philomousos,

Welcome to the Forge.

I notice that "taking on a role" ie acting is indeed the first definition of "roleplay" at dictionary.com.  Is that standard the only one to use when judging a players contribution to a roleplaying game?

Is it possible to make a good contribution to a roleplaying game without acting?

Now I'll admit, I do think that many valuable contributions to play are made without acting.  Do you agree?  Is acting absolutely necessary to good play in a roleplaying game?

Hey Philo, no animosity, but I will say that its not possible for me to disagree with you more strongly.

Acting in first person is fine, great, I enjoy it myself.  But it in no way is a requirement or even a part of the definition of roleplaying.  It is merely 1 technique among many.

Speaking in the third person about your character is another technique, a different technique but still 100% roleplaying.

Any differentiation you have between "roleplaying" being in character and out of character being "story telling" is entirely your own.  

It is an arbitrary distinction that, I see absolutely no value in making.  

Further I think attempting to paint roleplaying in first person as being some "higher art form" and people who don't do that as being "layabouts" is not only wrong, but destructive, unnecessary, and frankly, rather sanctimonious.

So no.  I don't agree with you at all.  And I suspect while you won't find the aggressively nasty flameage that is common at RPG.net here, that you won't find many who agree with your distinction either.

Philo,

As a tangental suggestion, you might also find Ron Edward's article Simulationism: The Right to Dream thought provoking.  It's in the  http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/" >Articles section.

Welcome to the Forge.  You've come to the right place!  We may not know anything, but by god we're happy to argue about it intelligently.  ;-)

I don't agree with you on definitions, all things considered, but given your formulation and the lack of any fundamentally superior definition with which to replace it, I am more distressed by the responses on the other forum -- which I have not read, and I am going to assume here that you are summarizing accurately.

Quote from: PhilomousosIn response to a question about the amount of roleplaying people normally engage in at the game table, I defined roleplaying as in-character dialogue and soliloquy, as well as the movements necessary to properly and proportionally supplement that verbal content.  Third-person description of the action in roleplaying games does not in itself constitute roleplaying - such descriptions are a necessary adjunct to roleplaying, however.

If I read you right, you're saying that gaming and roleplaying are not the same thing, in that gaming includes more than roleplaying, while at the same time the central principle that founds the definition of gaming is roleplaying.  In short, roleplaying is the "essence" of gaming.  (Note that I'm calling it gaming not to include Chess and whatnot; I mean RPG-gaming, but calling it "gaming" as shorthand.)

I'll get back to the essence problem in a minute; first, the objections to this:

Quote1.  I can't act.

I don't agree with either the objection or your response, the latter amounting to, "Just because you're no good at it doesn't mean it isn't important."  That, I agree with.  But you are in effect saying that without being good at the primary skill, as you define it, you can't be good at gaming.  Further, you have now shifted to accept that "acting" is equivalent to "roleplaying," which does not seem to me inherent in what you've formulated.  I would keep those scrupulously separate unless and until you formulate them as similar.  And, if it were me having this argument, I would say that I don't think acting and roleplaying are the same at all -- Ron has some nice points about this somewhere, in his remarks on Improv, and while I don't agree with him fully either I do think this is a dangerous elision.

Quote2.  Acting is stupid because many people do it poorly.

Well that's simply ludicrous, as you say.  By this logic, every difficult activity is stupid.  But I must ask whether you are correctly parsing your interlocutors: can they really be saying that?  If so, you'll be a lot happier at the Forge, as we may not always be brilliant but we're not generally complete morons.

Quote3.  I am morally bankrupt for suggesting that roleplaying actually has a definition, or that it is something which it is possible to do incorrectly.

Oh, that old chestnut.  That's called anti-intellectualism.  You know, "He seems to know stuff I don't, so he must be an egghead."  I don't know which country you're slashing, as far as the death of the Left, but I know in my country this isn't so much the death of the Left as the death of the mind itself.  [Which I happen to think overlap, but that's a separate issue.]  You should talk to Jonathan Walton, who gets regularly brutalized by a bunch of moronic, anti-intellectual fools over on his column, and who use "I don't like that" or even better "I haven't tried that" as proof-positive for "That's a stupid communist plot."  If those are your conversation-partners, do a little roleplaying yourself: in your head, all by yourself, imagine that the Revolution is here and that you can personally line them up against the wall and shoot them.  I find it makes my days a little brighter.  [And I like Mahler and Adorno, too.]

Quote4.  If I think in-character, and choose for my character to do what I think it would do in real life, that suffices to be roleplaying.

Now it gets very complicated.  Above, you apparently accepted an equivalence between acting and roleplaying; now you are challenging a classic acting technique, that of "belief" (called lots of other things in other contexts).  A clearer formulation of what you're up to is needed here.  Most particularly, a formulation of the audience-relationship in gaming as opposed to acting is necessary.

Setting aside the rest of your probably perfectly accurate rant, since it really addresses people not here to whose comments I cannot speak, I want to bring up a problem with your definition itself.

Your definition is what is technically known as a "reductionist" formulation.  That is, you have structured it such that a single criterion suffices to define the object.  This is a logically dubious foundation for a definition.  It's surely better than the nonsense apparently spouted at you, but it's ultimately nonfunctional on its own grounds.

If you really want to formulate a definition that works, I think there are basically two ways to go about it well:

Monothetic
In a monothetic definition, a single criterion ultimately describes the object.  This is what you already have.  But good monothetic definition is part of a larger system of classification.

Take biological classification of animals.  Linnaeus was into reproductive organs; let's suppose instead we decided to found our system on sensory organs (just because I know more about them).  Now here are the rules:

1. You must distinguish each class on its own ground, using a binary (yes/no) question: Does it have X or not?  Is it Y or not?  There may only be one such question per class.  Thus: does the eye have rod cells or not?  If it has rod cells, does it also have cone cells or not?  (Different classes, progressive stages.)
2. You may not infer any causal relationship among classes, comparatively.  That is, you cannot assume that because it has rod cells it also has cone cells, nor that the cone cells developed chronologically later than the rod cells.  This is a formal, logical classification, not a temporal or causal one.
3. You may never divorce a class and its distinguishing criterion from the structure that produced it.  For example, let's suppose the question is ultimately, "Does it have human-like [in a whole host of ways] eyes or not?"  Now if we retain the context, we can make a discrimination between some very close relatives of ours and some other animals.  If we divorce the context, which we shouldn't do, we will end up saying that we are fantastically closely related to squid, because their eyes are hugely like ours.

Let me sum up:
You must retain the distinction between homology and analogy.  In homology, the similarity of effect (what is described) derives from a causal equivalence: our eyes are like chimps' because we are very closely related.  In analogy, the similarity of effect is noted but not considered causal: our eyes are like squids' because of parallel evolution.

Polythetic
In polythetic classification, you have a large number of possible descriptors, and every class has a list of them.  Members of the class are so defined because they possess a certain statistical fraction of the elements on that list.  Here's a simple example: suppose we have descriptors A, B, C, D, E, F.  We have particular objects 1, 2, 3, 4.  We type the objects by descriptors:
1. A B C
2. B C D
3. C D E
4. D E F
Depending on our rules for classification, it is entirely possible to say that 1 and 4 are members of the same class, though they share no descriptors.

--

Now, back to RPG's.

You have defined gaming on the basis of the criterion, roleplaying.  This is monothetic, but is divorced from any context.  It's as though you said, "Advanced mammals have one primary essence: human-like eyes."  Fine, but what about squid?  In the Linnaean system, this can't happen, nor can it in any good monothetic classification system.

But I would push you to move, instead, to polythetic classification.  Set one of your limited list of descriptors to be "roleplaying."  Now go find some others.  Say that anything which can be accepted into the class "RPG" must possess some statistical fraction of the list.  Note the effect:

While it is likely that most members of the class will make the kind of roleplaying you describe a major element, it is still legitimately possible to have true gaming without it at all.  That's what Ralph (Valamir) is really proposing, in fact: he doesn't happen to think that this kind of roleplaying is particularly central at all.

---------

What I'm trying to do here is two things:
1. Challenge your ideas on their own ground, in hopes that you will develop a more sophisticated formulation and advance the (still very primitive) definitions question.  I believe that this is a major problem right now in RPG theory, and I'd like to welcome you to the Forge and to ask you to help us solve it, since it seems to be something you're grappling with.
2. Convince you that here on the Forge, you might find some intellectual stimulation worth your time.  Not that the others haven't provided good stimuli, but if you're feeling cranky (as I would be) after your unpleasant experience elsewhere, I'd like you to stop short and think, "Huh.  Not quite what I expected.  Time to do some reading around on this site."

Here's what I'm not trying to do:
Convince you that I'm right.  Frankly, I have had such horrible experiences with the definitions problem in other fields that I can't seem to move onward to constructive formulation.  But I hope we'll be hearing more from you about this!

Note
For a nifty summary of classification methods, from which I lifted most of this material, check out Jonathan Z. Smith, "Fences and Neighbors," Imagining Religion (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), 1-18.

Hi Philomousus,

Welcome to the Forge. I think you'll find some interesting discussions here. I want to say, though, that it's really hard for us to deal with your topic fairly. You've started this thread based on a summary of your detractors in a thread from another board. That means that we join the debate well in progress and with very little real context.

Now I'm not a mod, but I'm concerned that you're really not here to talk about the topic. I'm concerned that you felt frustrated and came here to vent. I hope you are not doing that--and I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt--but I think it's already had that effect to some extent. Whether you intended it or not, your post is like a pitch in a game of "let's bash RPG.net."

And honestly, even though you did say "site I normally frequent," I think a lot of posters here know what site you're talking about, and maybe some even know what thread you're talking about. I know I do, although I'll admit that I haven't read that thread very carefully. So I guess my point is, I hope you're not here just to vent, but instead to discuss (in this case) your definition of roleplaying. That's really the point of your post, I think, and it's something we can engage in fruitfully. And I hope we all keep in mind that it's not very useful to get into bashing RPG.net based on Philomousus's summaries, which may or may not entirely reflect what people were saying to him.

As I said, I haven't really read the thread myself either. But I have been frustrated by people's seeming inability to understand my point in the past, and I know what it's like to say "but you just don't get it." And I know I wouldn't have always fairly and completely represented my detractors in a case like that. Let's try to keep the talk about the ideas, not the people who have championed them.

Rich

Hi everyone,

As long as we restrict our discussion to the issues raised here, without particular reference to the RPG.net thread, and certainly without "joining that debate," all is well.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: PhilomousosI defined roleplaying as in-character dialogue and soliloquy, as well as the movements necessary to properly and proportionally supplement that verbal content.

Okay, that's how you choose to define roleplaying.  Now why should I use your definition?  What are you trying to accomplish by defining roleplaying in these terms?

QuoteRoleplaying is specifically different from storytelling.

Okay, now you're hinting at a specific defintion for storytelling.  I can think of many storytellers who use in-character dialog/soliloquy and physical movements.  But if you want to call what they're doing NOT storytelling, that's fine.

Again, why should we use your definitions?  And why are you distinguishing between roleplaying and storytelling?

QuoteUnfortunately, I think that the fantastical nature of the roleplaying art draws in a lot of escapists...So they really don't want to hear that roleplaying...requires intellect and talent.

All escapists reject the need for intellect and talent?  All roleplaying requires intellect and talent?  It's unfortunate that escapists flock to roleplaying because it interferes with what you want to do?  Or because they offend your moral sensibilities?

Isn't roleplaying a hobby?  As in, done for recreation and enjoyment?  We hold Olympic competitions for sports, but don't pooh-pooh occasional amatuers.

QuoteThough if this pursuit is to be taken seriously as art, I think perhaps we'll have to give the layabouts their walking papers.

Should roleplaying be taken seriously as art?  Is such recognition worth the loss of enthusiastic amateurs?  What happens when serious roleplayers have doctrinal differences of opinion?  Must we excommunicate the heretics to preserve the purity of our avocation?

I apologize if I am exaggerating your position, but you're not making your agenda clear, while you ARE making some...questionable statements.  :)

What about when a player's character is not in the current scene, and they are simply munching down chips and lollies while the GM is dealing with another player's character? Are they still playing the game?

I guess I'm trying to illustrate that since roleplaying, as you have defined it, is never going to be constant for any player whilst playing the game, there must be, by extension, the possibility to play the game without any roleplaying being required at all.

Just to be facetious, I'd be interested in hearing how you would define a "war-game"?

My opinion is that many words can have many meanings, and meanings change faster than dictionary's can keep up with them. To me, a "roleplaying game" is a game "that allows roleplaying as a form of participation in the game". This definition exludes such things as computer games, conventional boardgames, card games, and sports.

I think your question about tennis is invalid as a point of argument. Tennis is a specific game, and belongs in a larger category: sports. Roleplaying is a large category, not a specific game. It's like me arguing that all sports must be played with a round bouncy object called a "ball", and then supporting this argument with the proposition: "Would you play D&D without dice?".

Arguing about definitions of specific things is easy, but start arguing about very general concepts like "sports" or "roleplaying games" and you'll run into a lot of opposition. In the end, the only thing that is necessary is people participating, but even that statement may become false in the future.

Philomousos, welcome to the Forge. Chris Lehrich is too modest, I think--there are some very intelligent people attempting to do theory about role playing games at this site, and he is certainly among them.

Let me attempt to parse your point thus: Participants in a role playing game must play roles in the first person to be genuinely involved in the activity.

Now, permit me a hypothetical.

There are six people at the table. Five of them are playing characters; we'll say they're a combat team dropped planetside to investigate the fact that the original landing team has not responded to radio contact for three days. They enter the compound and begin to explore.

As they explore, they interact with each other entirely in character, first person. They may describe their actions, but all dialogue is first person.

The sixth person, the referee, describes what they see. At first we find the mechanisms of the station, functional. Then we begin to piece together that all the people who were here have been killed. Then we face the monsters who have been killing them--vicious, primitive, animal monsters with great power and great cunning who are just plain hungry. The adventure continues with the five character players interacting with each other and with the setting and situation, fighting the monsters, moving toward whatever end will come.

As I pull the camera back from this scene, I want to ask this: is the referee a participant in the role playing game as described? Note that there are no non-player characters for him to play in the first person; there is scenery, there are facts about the setting and situation, there are monsters whose movements must be controlled. At no point, though, is there any indication that the monsters have the power to make sound at all, and it is specifically indicated that they cannot speak. He is not playing a role in the same sense as the others.

Yet he is very definitely a participant, a player, if you will, in the role playing game, to the point that the game could not be played without him.

You might claim that this is a special position; that only one person gets that role. That, however, is a very limited view of what role playing games can include. In Universalis, everyone gets that role, and there really aren't specific character players. In Legends of Alyria, that role can be eliminated, its elements dispersed among the character players rather freely. Thus the fact that there can be one participant who does not participate by acting the role of his character in the first person, who is legitimately part of the game, means that it is possible to participate validly in a role playing game without doing so by acting the role of one character.

Your critics may be hot-headed and rather shallow in their response, but I would have to say that what you have described is not the essense of role playing games, but one technique that can be used for a specific and narrow aspect thereof.

If you hang around here a while, you'll become familiar with the word synecdoche (sounds like Schenectedy). It's a logical fallacy of confusing the part for the whole. I'm afraid you've done that--you've focused on one aspect of play and made it the entirety, and it becomes fairly clear fairly quickly that a great deal of play has nothing whatever to do with that one piece.

We don't have an authoritative statement of what a role playing game is; however, I'd like you to consider this notion which seems to be consistent across all such games: a role playing game is an activity in which people interact with each other to create characters and events within a shared imaginary space. That seems to be much closer to the heart of what we're doing than any suggestion of the techniques used to do that.

I do look forward to your response to this, and hope you haven't been overwhelmed by us; I note several of those for whom I have great respect are disagreeing with you, and that can be a bit unnerving--but all of us recognize that you've given this a lot of thought, and you're capable of solid thinking in this area, and will probably contribute to what we're doing here if you stick with it.

--M. J. Young