Regarding the nature of roleplaying

[Philomousos]

Thanks everyone for the responses so far.  Rather than cluttering up the place with several posts, I'll just collect them all together into one, organized in paragraphs.

First, generally, I appreciate being welcomed.  My blood pressure thanks you humbly for your politeness.

As to why I came here, I was mostly wanting some fresh perspectives.  I was hoping to find intelligent discussion and critique, which I have.

Also, regarding the other thread which I referenced, perhaps unwisely.  I do not feel I possess the ability to treat the 'opposing forces' fairly... I can only state what I got from the discussion, which is not necessarily what anybody said.  I don't plan on discussing that situation Over There anymore, except to say that I sometimes have a very... reactive(?) personality.  When other people's blood gets up, mine does too.  And I'm enormously prideful.  Which leads to a certain ornery disposition at times.  In short, some places might not be good for me... which is best attributed to a personal flaw on my part and let alone.  And so I shall.

My own feeling is that I'd like to see this thread become a discussion of the definition(s) of roleplaying, the problems that this poses, and the problems of the act of defining generally.  Which is how it seems to be going.

Jack:  If you feel like it, I'd be more than glad to hear your definition.  I'll even try not to mouth off if I disagree with you.  =)

Alan:  The way I see it, there are plenty of non-first person [to avoid being cumbersome, I'd like to equate "first person in-character dialgoue or soliloquy" with "acting"] statements (a statement perhaps being equivalent to a 'move' in other games) that contribute to the roleplaying experience.  Many of them seem highly necessary to be included in a roleplaying game, such as those "adjunct statements" I mentioned, like "My character picks up the gem and examines it."  And I really think it is a helpful approach to try to distinguish between the different types of actions taken in a roleplaying game, and what makes a roleplaying game distinct, etc.  So far, I'm still committed to the view that what roleplaying really means is acting (as I've used it above... the in-character first person stuff, plus whatever movements and gesticulations are necessary and desirable to supplement that performance).  As to whether acting is necessary to good play in a roleplaying game... I'd say that the acting *is* the roleplaying part.  If you didn't do any of it, you could play the game but you wouldn't be roleplaying.  Depending on what you're doing, I'd call it storytelling or wargaming or one of a number of possible things.

Valamir:  I hope the distinction isn't arbitrary.  I'm not an essentialist in the sense that I think some Form of roleplaying is floating around the aether somewhere, arguing about Kirk vs. Picard with the Good and the Beautiful.  But I do think that for language to be most useful (to excel at what it is expected to do) it requires distinctions.  Surely this pursuit of acting upon a phantasmal stage, conducting a verbal drama with other artist/auditors under a moderative scheme should have a name, metaphysical implications aside.  So I see the value in making the distinction in that it enables us to speak more intelligently about the subject.  Which I see as necessary to advance the art form.  And this phenomenon of acting seems to be the specific difference.

(still with Valamir)  About those 'layabouts' - perhaps that was a poor choice of words.  You'll find, if we interact much, that I'm unfortunately prone to those.  It's a failing I have... I have trouble distinguishing "blunt" from "pugnacious" at times - that's not an excuse, just a diagnosis.  But I do think roleplaying games are art.  I think they are and I think I've created art while engaging in them.  A beautiful and unique form... and painfully ephemeral, since it disappears almost as soon as it is created (though sometimes it takes on a somewhat different form, as memory).  And I don't think it's worth doing unless done well.  Why waste one's time with mediocrity?  Besides, I'm something of an optimist about the human species, and I think we can be pretty damn good if we try hard enough.  But that means I expect people to try.  So I don't have much time, personally, for hacks (of course, everybody starts out as a turkey - I'm just saying there has to be improvement).  But further, I think there are a lot of people in our hobby/artform/pursuit for the wrong reasons.  Like people who take Life Drawing just to ogle the naked people.  Their actions not only detract from the pursuit but also tend to make legitimate folks look bad (if you've spent any amount of time at a gaming store you know what I'm talking about).

clehrich:  I found yours a very challenging post.  Which I like.  =)  First, I should have been more clear about my initial definitions.  "Gaming" I take to include, in its broad usage, the pursuit of those games our language specifically identifies as such (leaving Wittgenstein aside for the moment).  "Gaming" in its narrow usage I would apply to roleplaying games, since that's what we're here for.  "Roleplaying" I'm defining as I did above, essentially to say that I think it is acting in this specific circumstance of the imaginary stage played upon in verbal drama.  So I think that roleplaying is a subset of gaming broadly... but of roleplaying gaming I would say that roleplaying is the definitive act in such a pursuit.

(still with clehrich)  Regarding the question of reductionism, I've never been sure what to do with that term.  I'd consider my approach to be eliminative... it excludes much and includes a precise amount.  But perhaps you're right that it lacks a certain utility (or even proportion) when divorced from other context.  As far as the question of a polythetic definition, I see definite advantages in approaching definition as set of various differentiated members or perhaps more colloquially as a 'constellation' of sorts.  For one thing, it preserves common usage.  But isn't this more suited to a 'folk theory' than something more rigorous?  Perhaps I'm missing the point of it.  But it seems that if you have polythetic definition "R", which includes 4 objects possessing various elements (in which there is some overlap as you've shown), won't we end up saying "R-sub-1" and "R-sub-2" and so on?  So that we've only forestalled the definitional act somehow?  If "roleplaying" is a meaningful term, I think it should be specific - the more specific it is, the more it excels at meaning... at least until it reaches the critical definitional mass of applying to things across individuals and time but being only one sort of thing so applicable.  And that's about where I see my definition sitting currently.  It applies to something unique to roleplaying games, which facet is in fact the element that makes them unique.  I'd welcome any serious attempt to undermine, deconstuct or generally erode this definition, of course.

Rich:  Those are totally legitimate concerns you raise.  I addressed this above, in the general portion, to put everyone's concerns to rest.  I'm here to be serious and really discuss this issue.  I needed another place to discuss this issue for several reasons, most especially needing to gain a more proportionate sense of how the gaming community feels about it.  To me it is a very serious issue... I'm very emotionally committed to roleplaying as being a serious, artistic pursuit and thus I feel I personally need to be able to actually define it properly.  And I was hoping to find, if not like minds, at least intelligent discussion.  I'm very pleased so far.  I'll try to make sure my own level of discourse is up to standards.

Vishanti:  As I've said, I'm interested to define roleplaying properly because it is something unique and deserves a specific definition.  I've tried to craft, in its admittedly inchoate stage, a definition which elevates the singular specifying element of our art as that which separates it from other pursuits.  If I'm successful, we'll be able to speak about roleplaying more intelligently and proceed to the next level of theorization.  As to why you should use my definition - do you not think that acting the parts of characters existing in imaginative space is the specifying element of roleplaying?  If not, why not?  What would you submit is the specifying element?

(still with Vishanti)  On storytelling - to me it is the mirror image of roleplaying.  As a roleplayer I use third person narration to augment my primary function, which is to portray a role; a storyteller uses the portrayal of a character in the first person to augment his relation of a tale.  They seem quite different.  On the subject of my negative assessment of dabblers, I'd like to point you to the second paragraph of my responses to Valamir - there's no sense repeating myself exactly.  But, in brief, I think that escapists ruin the rigor and excellence of roleplaying.  If I may be so bold, as an Olympic-class roleplayer (not that I'm suggesting it should be a sport!) I'm not only annoyed at all the non-serious practicioners cluttering up the playing field, I feel that they actively reflect poorly on *me* because they're not in the game for the right reasons.  Like the people who bathe only infrequently and try to tell everybody about their characters - these are found frequently at gaming stores.  Perhaps it makes me a mean and arrogant person, but I don't want them around (in roleplaying I mean - I'm not some ogre saying they should be deported or something!).  Yeah, in fact it sounds very arrogant.  But that's how I feel.  As it stands, I would feel ashamed to tell a non-gamer that I roleplay, particularly in a professional or romantic milieu.  But that's not due to anything that *I* do that I'm ashamed of.

Ravien:  I would say that someone not participating in the scene is not roleplaying.  And you're right - I don't think that roleplaying is constant during roleplaying game sessions.  By necessity, I think it happens in starts and stops because you have to say "I jump the chasm" or whatever in between portraying your role.  Now, on this question of a roleplaying game that "allows" roleplaying - that's a very good point.  But... even though portraying a role isn't addressed in the rules of Monopoly, you could roleplay during it.  You could name your capitalist, have him be Smithian or Keynesian or whatever, and speak to other players as the decadent parasite of your invention.  So doesn't Monopoly technically allow roleplaying, in that it is not forbidden?  Anyway, I don't think I really disagree... except to say that I still think roleplaying itself is what I've said it is.  At any particular time, you're either doing it or you're not.  So I do think you can play a roleplaying game and never roleplay.  It's just that I'm inclined to point out that roleplaying hasn't technically transpired.  And on wargaming - in the case of miniatures wargaming, it seems to be the manipulation of 3-D pieces on a playing surface for the purpose of attaining predefined objectives.  Which could I think describe some gaming sessions which some people (not including myself) are inclined to call roleplaying.

M.J.:  Also, very good points.  I sort of regret responding to everybody in order, since I'm such an obsessive proofreader (and still, mistakes get through!  Which makes me more obsessive!)... and it's getting to be past the point in the evening when higher cognitive functions still... thingy.  =)  Anyway, I just mean that I apologize in advance for rushing my response to your points.  It's by no means the final word.  But - on the question of the GM in the Aliens-esque of scenario.  I don't think that the GM is roleplaying in that instance.  Which is OK... sometimes, you can't.  He can do some movement, but that's about it (and maybe not even that, if he can't mime the aliens without looking silly).  Just like if I had a character who was bound and gagged, all I can do is bounce around a little bit in my chair and look frustrated (if I can manage a blush to drive it home, so much the better).  I don't think you can be roleplaying all the time in a roleplaying game.  I do think that roleplaying/acting as I've described it is the defining element of roleplaying games.  I like your definition of a roleplaying game as "an activity in which people interact with each other to create characters and events within a shared imaginary space."  But I just don't see that as specific enough.  Unless you're acting, I really don't see how you're playing a role.  If you're not doing that, then whatever the merit of what you are doing, it doesn't seem to be roleplaying.

(still with M.J.)  On synecdoche, yes, point taken.  I don't want to confuse the part with the whole.  But I don't think I actually have.  Satire and parody are two different techniques of writing.  Each has a specific set of one or more defining elements.  Roleplaying and storytelling and miniatures war-gaming and so on are all ways of exploring shared phantasies.  But each is different.  Perhaps I'm wrong but I think that's the level we're on and that's what my definition is aimed at highlighting.

[Ian Charvill]

Philomousos

If you susbstituted the word acting for the word roleplaying I'd suspect that you'd not find any problems.  To suggest that roleplaying is acting is pretty basic synechdoche as far as what happens during a roleplaying game.

Furthermore, to suggest that acting is the only route to art in roleplaying is narrow and ultimately self-defeating.  Prose description within a game can clearly be of artistic merit.  However your definition has such artistic endeavor excluded from roleplaying.

To put my biases on the table I see rpgs as not art but as games with art elements, like Pictionary is a game with art elements.

[Thierry Michel]

Frankly, I'm not sure I see the point of marking the story-telling part as subordinate to the acting part.

[Rich Forest]

Philomousous,

That's a great post, and I'm glad you're interested in trying to keep getting to the bottom of this "definition of roleplaying thing" and to treating RPGs as an art, which I'm certainly open to. Now you've gone and forced me into trying my best to contribute something useful to the thread. Here's my shot at it. So I'll start... here:

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.

So I think that roleplaying is a subset of gaming broadly... but of roleplaying gaming I would say that roleplaying is the definitive act in such a pursuit.

Right from the first post, Jonathon Nichol made the main point I'm going to follow up on, and it's a distinction I see echoed by almost every other post made in the thread. I'm going to echo it as well, perhaps just in different language. (Actually, Ian has also said exactly what I'm going to say, but more concisely. But I'm going to say it anyway, because I already had too much drafted before he posted to let it go now ;-) So starting from the beginning, with Jonathon's post:

However, a roleplaying game is more than just roleplaying so that may be why you're getting the antagonism.

We have to, absolutely must, parse out what we're talking about when we say "roleplaying" here. In every single discussion I have ever seen of the definition of roleplaying, it has always, always been an enormous stumbling block. I'm going to make a distinction between two meanings of the word "roleplaying" here.

1)   Playing a role (acting, playing in-character, etc.)
2)   Playing an RPG (sitting around with friends, playing a role, rolling dice, and a number of other things)

My definition #2 uses "RPG" to avoid the trickiness of the word "roleplay," which I'll get back to in a minute. When Chris refers to "gaming" in a narrow sense, this is what he's talking about. Again, I'm going with "playing an RPG" or even "RPGing" for now because even though "gaming" makes perfect sense in context, it's still too slippery and has too many connotations for my purposes right now.

Ok, this is probably nothing new, yet. But bear with me. You'll notice that I've included "playing a role" as one aspect of "playing an RPG." That's because I prefer to treat definitions as "short form" for the collection of ideas and things and processes and so on that we are referring to when we use the word. That means that my definition is not going to look anything like a dictionary definition to you. That's because dictionary definitions themselves are at best short forms for much more slippery concepts that they do not define fully. They just give us some idea. So "Playing an RPG" (roleplaying) includes a bunch of activities. Pretty much everything you do when you get together for your game session, and the stuff that most people do when they "Play an RPG" is especially part of the definition. I suppose you've already gotten to this, in a sense,

So I do think you can play a roleplaying game and never roleplay. It's just that I'm inclined to point out that roleplaying hasn't technically transpired.

But what does this mean? Does it mean...

"So I do think you can play an RPG and never play a role. It's just that I'm inclined to point out that playing a role hasn't technically transpired."

Or does it mean,

"So I do think you can play an RPG and never play a role. It's just that I'm inclined to point out that playing an RPG hasn't technically transpired."

See how the first one makes sense, but the second one doesn't? But they both seem to make sense if you count on English because the word "roleplaying" means both of those things.

So what's happened here? Well, people were playing wargames, then they started playing RPGs. But they didn't have a word for it. So they said, hm, what's something short, something that is an element of what we do, something that's different from wargaming. And someone called it "roleplaying." And it was a good name for it, because it was one aspect of what playing an RPG was. But it was never the only one, nor was it ever necessarily the most central one: in fact, I wonder how central "playing a role" was to the act of "playing an RPG" when the term roleplaying was coined. See, it doesn't matter, though. That one word, "roleplaying" doesn't capture the full experience, the full act, the full process of playing an RPG. But language tricks us. It makes us believe that it does capture the essential element. Why? Because it's the name we use to refer to the act.

So if you say, "If you are not speaking in character, you are not roleplaying ('playing a role')," then I have no real problem with that. If, on the other hand, you say "If you are not speaking in character, you are not roleplaying ('playing an RPG')," then I have to disagree because my understanding of "playing an RPG" include a number of activities that are very typical of doing so and have been since people started playing RPGs. What you have here, is the prioritization of one element of playing an RPG to being the absolute most important element.

But on what basis?

I think, perhaps, it's just on the basis of language. The same word is used to refer to two different things, but because it is the same word, it must be the most important part. That is, of course, understandable. Language is a kind of framework for approaching the world. It's a jumping off point. So it's going to influence where we start when we start to talk about something. But what if RPGs had been called something different? They could have been. And then, many people might prioritize the named element. And on what basis? The word. The name.

Here's another example of the same thing. "Storyteller." I see it all the time with "Storyteller," and I have useful personal experience for this one, so I'll go into it a bit. When "Storyteller" was first adopted and promoted by White Wolf, I was in high school. And I thought, "Yeah, that's what the GM is and does." I did this even though I had been roleplaying for years and I knew what GMing was. I had been doing it. But I read those words, and they struck a chord, and I took them to be the definition of the role, and I based my understanding of the GM's job on those words, and what happened? I went to the library and read books about being a good storyteller. Those books were not about playing RPGs or GMing RPGs. They were about this activity of going around and telling stories (in U.S. culture, usually to children, or at festivals, or libraries). And you know what, I did learn some useful techniques—but only some. Because the GM is not really the same as a "storyteller" in this sense. If the GM takes this word and thinks it is equivalent to the job of GMing, well, the players are in for a ride, and it's likely that they'll come across as annoyances because they are mucking with the story. There's only one storyteller. By confusing the word with the activity, I changed the way I approached the activity. I've only recovered over the last couple years.

Now I've mostly made my main argument, but I'm going to mention one other thing. You've noted in your reply to Chris a distinction between what you consider to be traits of a folk definition and those of a formal definition. I'm going to argue that formal definitions are not in and of themselves more scientific, nor are they in and of themselves more useful, and they certainly aren't always appropriate. They work for formal logic because formal logic is, like mathematics, an artificial language. It is a subset of a natural language. That means that, while it is really useful for certain things, it is not particularly useful to the description of language. (It's frankly hard to talk about language, in a way, because the resource we use to discuss it is also the object of our discussion. Some people turn to formal logic to solve this problem. I would argue that this is neither particularly useful, nor particularly scientific, in the sense of doing what scientists really do.)

Is it important to be very clear about what we mean when we use a word in a rigorous setting? Yes. That's amply demonstrated by this thread and is the point of much of my post. Is using a word in a very clear manner equivalent to mapping the word 1:1 to a single identifying trait. No. In fact, in many cases, it is not only something undesirable, it is not possible. Seeking such a definition is one of the most persistent hobgoblins of most attempts to define playing an RPG.

And one last bit, which may sound silly to you, um, do you mind sharing your name? I ask partly because real names have historically been an important aspect of the Forge, and it's one that I'm loathe to lose. But I also ask because I have to re-check your name every time I post in order not to get the spelling wrong, and that, you know, requires a kind of grunt work I'd rather avoid if I can ;-)

Rich

[pete_darby]

Firstly, thanks for bringing the debate over here, where I can join in the debate without lapsing into the extremism I seem to do in "another place"...

One reason why I'm chipping in over here is to, once again, bring to everyone's attention Philisomous' succinct definition of role playing he gave in the RPG.net thread:

RPG's are games of verbal drama.

Which I want to frame and bring out every time someone asks me for a one line definition of RPG's.

But the process of RPG's, the production of a game of verbal drama, does not rely on first-person speech, just on verbal description. I can only think of one game that demands totally first person speech from players (Puppetland), but I can imagine nearly all RPG's being playable without any first person speech at all. I imagine most gamist play is conducted without first person speech for the majority of play.

So please understand, you've told a lot of people that what they've been calling role-playing isn't really role-playing... but you're going against the weight of history and usage. Also given that there's a term inside the hobby for what you're calling role-playing (first person speech, or acting), we're heading for a deal of confrontation and confusion.

I agree that clear definitions are necessary and good, but it doesn't follow that any particular given definition is either.

One thing I'm getting form you is that the "acting" part is, for you, the point of RPG's, while anything else is only good in so much as it supports the acting. Is that fair?

Please accept that for others, the story, events or results of the aggregate of play, with or without in-character speech, may be the point of playing a role-playing game. Saying that they're "not role-playing" seems a bit harsh, and quite hard to justify.

As for undermining your definition, as you've asked: speaking extemporaneously in character, i.e. playing a role without a script, is not unique to role-playing games, it is shared with improvisational acting. You seem to be saying that if we are to define RPG's, they must have at least one unique aspect that is not shared by any other form. Very well, to me that would be the social and interactive construction and exploration of a shared imaginary space.

Really, it is looking to me llike you've confused your preferred mode of playing as the highest form of role-playing, and continue to denigrate "storytellers" as damaging to your pursuit. Have you had a look at the essays section? Pretty much everyone round here has bought into the idea that there are multiple valid agenda for playing role-playing games, none of which can claim exclusivity to the title "role-playing."

I'm not saying that your style of play is not valid, and worth striving to perfect and acheive the state of art with. But in promoting it, you seem to have moved into denigrating any other style of play as harmful to your own, which it may certainly be incompatible with, and you move to classifying appraoches incompatible with yours as bad and not role-playing.

Please. Other styles are not your enemy, please stop treating them as such.

[Alan]

Alan:  As to whether acting is necessary to good play in a roleplaying game... I'd say that the acting *is* the roleplaying part.  If you didn't do any of it, you could play the game but you wouldn't be roleplaying.  Depending on what you're doing, I'd call it storytelling or wargaming or one of a number of possible things.

Hi Philo,

Would you agree that, in our hobby, a game would not be considered a roleplaying game if the players were required to stick to a script?  Doesn't this imply that there's more to our hobby than acting?

In connection with our hobby "roleplay" may actually have a more basic meaning than the dictionary defnition.  The actual root components of "roleplay" breaks down into two elements:

"Role": a part in a story.

"Play": game, fun, creative activity.

We could see this as a game where players direct the actions of a role.  

What does it mean to direct the actions of a role?  Does that require acting?

[Valamir]

But I do think roleplaying games are art. I think they are and I think I've created art while engaging in them. A beautiful and unique form... and painfully ephemeral, since it disappears almost as soon as it is created (though sometimes it takes on a somewhat different form, as memory).

And I don't think it's worth doing unless done well. Why waste one's time with mediocrity? Besides, I'm something of an optimist about the human species, and I think we can be pretty damn good if we try hard enough. But that means I expect people to try. So I don't have much time, personally, for hacks (of course, everybody starts out as a turkey - I'm just saying there has to be improvement).

And this is exactly what I'm saying when I disagree with you.

You are saying:

Roleplaying is art.

The highest quality best roleplaying art is when people act in character.

People not acting in character are producing mediocre art,


I am saying, bluntly.  Baloney.

There is no rational measurement by which you can say that "In character roleplaying" is superior art to "out of character roleplaying".  Period.

If roleplaying is art (which I'm willing to accept as a given here, although you could have threads and threads debating that topic by itself) there is no difference in the quality of the art produced based on "acting" vs "story telling".


Your entire arguement is the equivelent of saying.

Painting is Art

The Highest best quality painting uses the color red

Any painting that doesn't use the color red is mediocre art.


Simply not true.
YOU may have a preference for playing in character.
YOU may have a preference for playing with others who play in character.

All perfectly good and fine.

But don't try to label what you enjoy as being good art and what you don't enjoy as being mediocre art.


6 folks around the table playing a game in character.
6 folks around the table playing a game out of character.

Says NOTHING about the quality of their game either as entertainment or as art.  

There is no reason to label one art and other not save your personal taste.  And that ain't good enough.

[quozl]

Thank you Rich for taking the time to explain what I tried to say earlier.  You got it right on.

Unless I've misunderstood the original post, he's defining roleplaying, not an RPG.  Almost every response to the post seems to think he is defining an RPG.  So, which is it?  Are you defining roleplaying or an RPG?

[Walt Freitag]

I agree with Valamir. In fact, as I was reading Philomousos's responses, the exact same metaphor regarding paintings and the color red came into my mind (even using the same color... scary).

Here's another comparison that might be instructive: Over the years most of my own role playing activity has been live action role playing games (LARPs). When playing live action role playing games, one acts physically in character as well as speaking in character, and one generally does a lot more speaking in character than in most tabletop games.

Suppose I were to declare that the essence of roleplaying was speaking and acting physically in character, and that other forms of play that did not include physical action were therefore inferior? That all those players who sit idly around tables just talking were cluttering up the field and reflecting poorly on my own hobby? Isn't it clear that such a position would not only be perceived as arrogance, it would in fact be arrogance?

- Walt

[Vishanti]

Philomousos, as I understand you, you're very proud of what you do and want to promote your take on the hobby.  That's perfectly reasonable.

But so far, you're promoting negatively.  Anything other than what you do is wrong and somehow screws up your enjoyment of the hobby.  Naturally, you're going to ruffle feathers.  :)

In my RPG experience, different gamers have different needs:  gamism, escapism, storytelling, socialization, creativity, etc.  And RPGs work for all these different needs!  I think this flexibility is great.  Diversity has drawbacks, but my needs don't trump others.

Speaking concretely, my vision of RPGing focuses on ideas.  What ideas do you bring to the table?  What do you do with the ideas we already have?  Do you understand the game's conceptual environment?  Are your character's actions reasonable outgrowths of that understanding?

I'd much rather have a player who understands bushido and feudal Japan, than one who can channel Toshiro Mifune.

So if you tell me that I'm not roleplaying with my games, or that I'm not even playing RPGs, that's fine.  But I won't take you terribly seriously, because:

a) You're denying the validity of my position, and
b) You're wandering off into territory that doesn't affect me.

Furthermore, you're branching off into three different directions.  In the first, you're arguing semantics, trying to clarify the definition of roleplaying.  This is a good objective, and may well be necessary for discussion.

In the second, you prioritize roleplaying (as you define it) above everything else in the hobby.  This is where you run into so much trouble, as not everyone is doing it the way you do.  To repeat myself, why should we accept your prioritization?

In the third, you're conflating not-roleplaying (what everyone else is doing) with extreme social dysfunction -- gamers who don't bathe, for instance.  Tempers are going to flare.  Not the way to build consensus.  Not the way to encourage intelligent discourse.  :)

I would advise that you narrow your focus and broaden your perspective.  You can promote your style of RPGing in a local area, without revolutionizing the hobby.  (No pogroms, please.)  Be as restrictive as you like with your own groups.  Form an elite association of people who share your vision.  Push the positives of your style, not the (perceived) negatives of all the others.

At the same time, realize that what you want isn't going to work for everyone.  Also realize that shared interests don't mean similar people (some RPGers DO bathe).  React to unpleasant stereotypes with factual evidence; if that doesn't work, don't worry about it.

Olympic skiers may complain that amateurs are cluttering up one particular mountain, but I doubt any of them would insist all non-Olympians give up the sport and get out of the way.  :)

John Stepp

[Christopher Weeks]

But I do think roleplaying games are art...

And I don't think it's worth doing unless done well. Why waste one's time with mediocrity?

And this is exactly what I'm saying when I disagree with you.

You are saying:

Roleplaying is art.

The highest quality best roleplaying art is when people act in character.

People not acting in character are producing mediocre art,


I am saying, bluntly.  Baloney.

Ralph, I think you're disagreeing with something he didn't say.  He's not saying "People not acting in character are producing mediocre art."  He's saying that people not acting in character are producing something other than roleplay(ing).  He might be talked into story-telling as an art form, distinct from roleplaying and even agree that one's preference for one over the other is a matter of aesthetic.  What he is saying is that bad acting produces mediocre art.

As far as I can tell, the basic point is that roleplay = playing roles.  I'm not sure why anyone would disagree.  How would I even formulate a defense of this notion when it seems so obviously true?  Just look at the words!

Now, all that snooty shit about art and one thing being better than another can all get stuffed.  If people are having fun, then more power to them and to hell with this guy's sense of upset about being reflected poorly upon.  I mean, come on.  But I think his definition of 'roleplay' is spot on.  I just prefer mixed-activity games and less hangup.

Chris

[Alan]

As far as I can tell, the basic point is that roleplay = playing roles.

And my point is that playing roles does not necessarily require acting techniques.  Playing a role can just mean directing the actions of a character in a fantasy.

[Christopher Weeks]

As far as I can tell, the basic point is that roleplay = playing roles.

And my point is that playing roles does not necessarily require acting techniques.  Playing a role can just mean directing the actions of a character in a fantasy.

OK, I'm missing something, then.  If your character is Bob, and you're saying to the GM or other players or whatever "Bob bends down and picks up the magic nerdle."  What role are you playing?  I'm willing to grant that you're playing an RPG, but I don't see you playing a role.

Chris

[Alan]

... playing roles does not necessarily require acting techniques.  Playing a role can just mean directing the actions of a character in a fantasy.

OK, I'm missing something, then.  If your character is Bob, and you're saying to the GM or other players or whatever "Bob bends down and picks up the magic nerdle."  What role are you playing?

I think you're still stuck in the idea that "playing a role" = acting.  Consider it can also be "playing with a role" or "playing a game that involves roles."

Roleplaying (as used in the hobby) can also be authoring or directing.

You're directing the role of Bob, hence you're playing Bob's role in the fantasy.  In this case, the player is roleplaying Bob.

[Valamir]

I'm with you Alan.

I'll play in first person complete with accent and speech pattern.  But I'll mix it up with 3rd person statements, sometimes even in the same sentence.

Me:  "Ok, then.  So Bob walks up to this guy and he's all acting tough and strutting and stuff and says 'Hey you, get outta my chair, like pron-to', right. And he's all cracking his knuckles and looking fierce"  And at the table I might be mimicking Bob's mannerisms and cracking my knuckles and endeavoring to look fierce.

I find the notion that part of this counts as roleplaying because I said and did it in the first person and part of it doesn't because I said it in the third, to be patently absurd.