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

...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 -...

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

quozl wrote:

coxcomb wrote: I 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.

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 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.

Philomousos wrote: 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.

1. I can't act.

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

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.

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.

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

Philomousos wrote: I defined roleplaying as in-character dialogue and soliloquy, as well as the movements necessary to properly and proportionally supplement that verbal content.

Roleplaying is specifically different from storytelling.

Unfortunately, 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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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:

First, you wrote: 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.

More recently, you wrote: 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.

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

when you wrote: 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.

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.

Philomousos wrote:
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.

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).

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?

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

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

Valamir wrote:

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.

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

Alan wrote:

Christopher Weeks wrote:
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 wrote:

Alan wrote: ... 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 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.

Philomousos wrote: "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. [emphasis added]

Regarding the question of reductionism, I've never been sure what to do with that term.

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?

Hi Philomousos and welcome to forge. While I support your reaction against the trend at RPG.net I disagree with your assumption. You are identifying character immersion, not "roleplaying." You are essentially saying that the group of gamers who have been playing since 1982 but never use the "in character" voice acting have NEVER roleplayed. This may be true from the psychological definition of the term but is most definatly not true from inside our hobby. Any gamer, whether on the Forge or RPG.net will be able to identify their activity as "roleplaying" and not "storytelling." Immersion is great, immersion is wonderful but a lack of immersion does not a RPG unmake.

One thought I had: from the standpoint of dictionary definition, roleplaying games _are_ misnamed. It's too bad that the popular term isn't "storytelling game" or something, but it would be damn hard to convince every RPGer to change their terminology.

Alan wrote: One thought I had: from the standpoint of dictionary definition, roleplaying games _are_ misnamed. It's too bad that the popular term isn't "storytelling game" or something, but it would be damn hard to convince every RPGer to change their terminology.

Misnamed, shmisnamed.

What does a hot dog become when it cools down?

- W

I'm still mulling over the ideas people are presenting in this discussion, and I'm not really ready to speak my own mind on the topic... but I have a question or issue to raise about something in the first post in this thread, an issue I haven't seen anyone mention.

Philomousos wrote: 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.

Philomousos wrote: 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. =)

There are few things that we phrase properly; most things we phrase badly: but what we are trying to say is understood.

Philomousos wrote: I defined roleplaying as in-character dialogue and soliloquy, as well as the movements necessary to properly and proportionally supplement that verbal content.

Philomousos wrote: I defined roleplaying as in-character dialogue and soliloquy, as well as the movements necessary to properly and proportionally supplement that verbal content.

Walt Freitag wrote: Misnamed, shmisnamed.

What does a hot dog become when it cools down?

- W

Hi again. So, I'm going to do another big, clunky multiple response thing. I find it the natural way to approach this sort of "Philomousos contra mundi" (no, I'm not serious...) situation. If anybody sees an easier way to do it that prevents clutter, I'm all ears.

Just to preface, I've found everything to be thought-provoking so far. I want to start by saying that I've irresponsibly elided two things which I did not intend to elide... this goes to my cantankerousness about artistic mediocrity and whatnot. I don't mean to include everybody who disagrees with me or who pursues the playing of roleplaying games (I'll just call them RPGs, like Rich suggested) in a way which my admittedly rarefied definition does not class as roleplaying strictly speaking. I was still reacting, unfortunately, to things entirely outside the contents of this thread. It's the people who pursue RPGs for reasons other than artistic excellence that I have no time for - people who just like to hide out in the fantasy worlds which they find more amenable than real life. I didn't mean to make it seem as if I extend my contempt to those people who pursue RPGs seriously and thoughtfully, even if those folks don't agree with a word I've said and think I'm a total nitwit. Thinking that I'm a nitwit is certainly no crime in my book, even though it hopefully represents an error in judgment. =)

Also, since Rich asked but it's really not an issue related only to him, my name is Aaron. I answer to that, to Philomousos or even just Philo is fine. The name means, roughly, Muse-lover. Something which was once true of me.

Again by way of generalities... if I don't respond to a post it doesn't mean I didn't find it illuminating. But there's other stuff I'm supposed to be doing and all that.

There's one more bit I should clarify, since I think it comes up in a lot of posts: I'm not saying that roleplaying is the only thing that should happen during an RPG. I don't think that you can actually have an RPG that includes only roleplaying, as I'm defining it, because what you say and the movements you make won't make sense unless the stage has been set. So you have to say things like "I go over to the podium and pick up the sheaf of notes sitting on it" to let everyone know what you're character is supposed to be doing. I just don't think it's actually roleplaying - it is the necessary set up to roleplaying. Then when you mime thumbing through pages, and say "Hmm... this is the most peculiar handwriting I've ever seen..." or whatever, your audience knows what's going on. But only the latter is the actual roleplaying, according to my definition.

Rich: I feel I'm mostly with you on your post. As to the question of playing a roleplaying game but not roleplaying - this is what I mean to say: 'You can play an RPG without ever roleplaying. I'm just inclined to point out that roleplaying hasn't taken place.' And further, a lot of what absolutely must be done during an RPG session is not roleplaying, even if you had a group of Philo-fanatics who are complete idolaters to my definition. I'm just saying that this specific thing, "acting", is what it means to play a role. So if you played an RPG without roleplaying, which is entirely possible, you'd be missing the point... you'd be using an RPG for a less than optimum application. As far as the definition part, I'm going to address that most robustly in my response to Chris, so you might want to check out that part, below.

Pete: On that one matter... I've started to think of it like this: I like to go to clubs. But if there was one club where I always ended up drinking too much, making an ass of myself, getting smacked by women and finally getting ejected for punching another patron in the face... and it was just happening at that one club, then I'd be smart to avoid hanging out there. Because clearly I couldn't handle myself properly while I was there. So, I'll try being smart for once. =) As to the verbal drama thing, I'm glad that seems useful to you. Although, part of my Quixotic crusade to advance my acting-based definition is that I'm not sure that my more succinct formulation has the appropriate level of specificity. It seems like for most people, though, what I've been defending is too specific. At least I have something non-controversial to fall back on if all else fails. =)

(still with Pete) So, on your characterization of my position that acting is the 'point' of RPGs and everything else in them is only good insofar as it supports acting... that's almost what I'm saying. I'm just trying to say that the acting part *is* the roleplaying part, that acting is what roleplaying really is, and if you're not acting you're not roleplaying. And I do see it as necessarily the point of RPGs. Which probably should have a different name besides RPG, because maybe it's misleading. So, other things which happen (as they do, of necessity) during an RPG that are in themselves not roleplaying are indeed good inasmuch as they support the roleplaying (acting). However, there could be other things that happen during the playing of an RPG that, while not roleplaying and not specifically supportive of it, are good in some other way that I haven't addressed. For instance, telling a good story is a fine and worthwhile thing. I'm just not on board with calling it "roleplaying". I like to have good stories in my RPGs, though. I like philosophy in them, too - but raising or exploring philosophical concepts is not roleplaying. It is something else, which I think sweetens the deal when it is added to roleplaying.

(still with Pete): If I denigrated storytelling, I didn't mean to and I retract any statement I might have made to that effect. It's a worthy pursuit. As I said above, though, I think there are unworthies lousing up our art. I don't count storytellers among them, surely. Even if I think that roleplaying and storytelling are different, and for the purposes of roleplaying storytelling is a subordinate activity, storytelling is an art in itself and laudable. Nor do I intend to treat other, differing styles as my enemies. Now, I'm willing to treat people who are anti-intellectual or not serious or whatever as enemies... but if I came off sounding like I think anybody who is doing something besides roleplaying is a boob then I apologize. I'm just trying to be realistic about what roleplaying actually is, and about who's doing it and who's doing something else.

Alan: Regarding sticking to a script, that strikes me as an interesting proposition. I think it would still be roleplaying... but it wouldn't be the same sort of "game" we usually think of when we say RPG. An RPG generally implies creative freedom (within the boundaries of the rules and the GM's interpretation of the imaginary world) for the participants. So I wouldn't call a scripted game an RPG, though I think it would still be a game that involved roleplaying. As far as "directing the actions of a role" - that still seems authorial to me. It still seems like storytelling. To "play" in roleplaying is synonymous with "portray" - thus, acting.

Valamir: I'm not sure we're communicating fully. When I say "roleplaying is art", I *don't* mean playing an RPG is art. I mean just what I said - roleplaying is art. It's art whether you do it while playing an RPG or some other time. Now, I think the point of playing an RPG is to roleplay. But it's entirely possible to play an RPG and never roleplay. The mediocrity part comes in when people reject roleplaying because it is difficult, or because they don't want to do something serious with their time. That's a separate issue in some ways, which maybe I shouldn't have even brought up in the first place. But what I'm trying to do is define roleplaying, not RPGs. Now, I am explicitly directing what I say about roleplaying to the question of roleplaying in RPGs, but I don't consider them to be the same thing. Does that help? Oh, and what's absurd about part of sentence being roleplaying and part not? Sentences frequently include several different types of phenomena in them. I don't see anything that's formally absurd.

quozl: Yes, as I just said to Valamir, I'm trying to define roleplaying, not RPGs. Roleplaying in the context of RPGs, of course, but what I'm about is trying to define roleplaying. Which I still think is in need of defining, because I think a lot of people call stuff roleplaying that isn't technically roleplaying.

Vishanti: I agree with what you say about RPGs. They're very flexible and you can explore lots of different things with them. Though, as I've said, I don't think escapism is a legitimate motivation for being involved with them - but I guess maybe that's a different topic at this point. And I'm very much an idea-oriented person, too. But... I do think that the point of RPGs, and what I mean is their optimum usage, is to roleplay. And so, as I see it, channeling Mifune is what we're after (heh - I'd love to be that good a roleplayer!). But I look at it like movies... even strong performances, although they are the defining virtue of movies, are not alone enough to have a complete and rewarding film. You also have to have good content. Thus, "The Girl With The Pearl Earring", which I consider a contemporary masterpiece, exceeds "Identity", which though it had strong performances as well (though not *as* strong) did not have the same level of content. Both of which blow "X-Men" out of the water. Which latter film blows a lot of other films out of the water, and so on.

(still with Vishanti): On pogroms and bathing and such - this is again a situation, par for the course, when I've thrown everything and the kitchen sink into a point I was trying to make, so that instead of arguing about one thing I've ended up arguing about everything. This was a mistake on my part. But since it's out there - I really do think it would be gainful to separate the wheat from the chaff in our hobby. Don't you agree? I'm not talking about the people with whom I disagree about the definition of roleplaying, or even the people who play RPGs differently than I do and obstinately insist that they're actually roleplaying. I'm talking about the people who aren't serious, and who are into RPGs to get away from their real lives. That not only cramps my own style personally, it's bad for said individuals. I'd like to be able to say that my main concern is the latter... but, well, it is what it is.

Christopher: Yes, I think you see what I'm saying. Though I'm curious... what part of the "snooty shit" do you substantially disagree with?

clehrich: So, I think that roleplaying is acting, and thus acting is the point of an RPG. Though you could play an RPG without it and have a good time - that's not the point. But yes, I do think that roleplaying is synonymous with acting, and that the point of playing an RPG is to roleplay (in that, at least, the RPG is underutilized if you don't). Now, it could be that I'm being a pure blockhead and I haven't picked up on the substance of your post yet. But I do maintain that what I've got here is both the correct explanation of the term "to roleplay", and the specifying element of an RPG... that it is for roleplaying. It may sound arbitrary, but is it really? The player in an RPG defines a character... a role. The action of the game is to portray this role, is it not? And yet, if this "character" is merely used as a playing piece on a battle map, or a set of statistics rolled against in order to ultimately attain a goal - this portrays nothing. But if a player acts his part... that's what I'm seeing as specifically differentiating the pursuit of RPGs.

(still with clehrich) Now, maybe the definitional problem is not with "roleplaying" but with RPG. Maybe where I'm wrong is that RPGs can be used for a hundred different things, all of which are equally legitimate and potentially artistic. But then isn't it odd for them to focus on characters? And to be called "roleplaying" games? Maybe we should call them Verbal Dramatic Games (VDGs... plus the NSA wouldn't have to be bothered reading through all these gaming posts if we stopped calling them RPGs...). Then I suppose I could sit around and say "I'm a roleplayer" and other people could say "I'm a storytelling gamer" or "I'm a director of imaginary entities" or whatnot. So perhaps I'm right about what roleplaying is but wrong about what the point of RPGs is... maybe there is no point. Lemme think about it for a while yet. (Actually, Alan has suggested the possibility of misnomer also.)

Jack: Indeed. Quid ergo est roleplayinggame? Si nemo ex me quaerat, scio. =) On your definition... I don't see how you can divorce "roleplaying" from the portayal of a role. Now, maybe you've defined RPGs properly, however.

Alan: On the chandelier swingin' bit... that's not something I think can be roleplayed (at least not in tabletop... no telling what those Larpers do). I think it is best simply described. And that description is not roleplaying. But it is a necessary adjunct to roleplaying. And there is an art to describing things well. But I see no point in saying "While he swings on the chandelier, my character gives forth his great barbaric yawp!" Instead, why not roleplay? Give a barbaric yawp yourself... I would perhaps hold up my arms in the fashion of swinging, to help convey the scene. Does that help make it clearer?

It almost came up a few posts ago, but I think if we are going to define roleplaying, we must break down the actual word to attempt to establish its inherent meanings.

Role, and Playing.

But what the hell does "playing" mean? Does a definition exist that is inclusive of all activities that are known to be played, and exclusive of all tasks that are known to not be played? Should the definition remain open for things which are not yet known, but which may become known in the future? What about things that are no longer known, but which were known in the past?

And what about "role". Is the definition of a role a "conceptual construct of an individual non-self identity"? Does it mean "a part to act"? If I attempt to play the role of my friend, is that any more of a role than if I were to play the role of a God (an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent non-individual)? What about if I play the role of a group or organization, or even a country? Is that not a role? What about if I play the role of myself?

To get down to brass tacks, no word should ever be defined by any other method than a shared understood meaning developed through use. Someone has already pointed out the words awful and awesome, but all words can be used to demonstrate this point, none moreso than profanities like "fuck" "shit" and even the seemingly specific "dick". The definition of the word must, by necessity and the goal of all language, include all meanings for which it is ever intended and used, and exclude all meanings for which it is intended to not carry meaning.

Dictionary's do not create language, they present it. Why? Because words are abstract subjective concepts tied to visual and auditory cues (and tactile cues for those who can read braille). If someone can't read, do they not have language? If someone cannot move their body, can they not roleplay? Can they not act? What if they are playing the part of a person (not themselves) who cannot move their body?

Fruit.

What? Fruit? Yes, Fruit. How did you interpret this right now? Did you take the meaning of the word as being a large category of plant-grown appendages consisting of seeds and flesh and skin? Or did you take the more abstract meaning of "that which can be obtained", as in "the fruits of her labours". Or did you perhaps interpret it as a slander against you made by me to indicate that I thought you suffered diagnosable mental instability? Is your interpretation of the word more important than my intrended meaning? What if my intended meaning was not that 'fruit' had a meaning, but that "fruit" had many, and thus had the meaning "a word with many connotations".

Can I ask enough rhetorical questions to illustrate the problems with attempting to define a super-ordinate on the basis of a sub-ordinate, especially when excluding necessary parts of the sub-ordinate? :)

I hope I've made my point: the very task you are setting out to achieve cannot be achieved if anyone disagrees with you. For a word to be useful, it must carry meaning that is preserved across individuals, and because of this fact, all words have multiple meanings, but the specifics of exactly which meaning is intended are dealt with through the rules of language and the use of grammar and context.

I must say that Rich's post is excellent; I hesitate to add--but I was already thinking on these points before I read his, so I'm going to proceed. I'm also starting, once again, without the benefit of having read the rest of the thread (I hope it isn't closed--I really hate it when a thread closes the next day after a flurry of activity), but I hope I can contribute something to what's been said.

Aaron a.k.a. Philomousos wrote: 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.

Then, responding to me, he wrote: 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.

How about I start a campaign to recognize that the "play" in roleplay doesn't mean to play the role like an actor in a play, but to play the role like a player in a poker game would play a card? Since the word "playing" is implicit in the word game, it can be inserted into any form of game to show how it's played. Card playing games are games that you play by using cards. Board palying games are games you play by using a board. miniatures playing games are games you play by using miniatures. Role playing games are games you play using roles.

Aaron (since I checked, and I spelt your username wrong every damn time, sorry): I still think we've got terms for what you're defining as role-play (acting, immersion, first person speech), and to start talking about sessions of role-playing games where no role-playing took place seems as nonsensical as talking about writing sessions where no writing took place, or football matches where football wasn't played.

Also, I think you'll find that Art vs Escapism is a false dichotomy. I find that art vs most things are false dichotomies, apart from art vs art (typified by your artistic effort frustrated by storytellers artistic efforts).

M. J. Young wrote:

Aaron a.k.a. Philomousos wrote: 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.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Harlan Ellison, role playing gamer.

I'm sorry, but I have heard him go on and on about how some people are writing science fiction and others are writing sci fi, and that these are not the same thing at all--but the only difference between them, really, is that science fiction is the good stuff and sci fi is the schlock. I'm sorry, but you can't define anything based on the quality either of the product or of the producer. Cheap champagne is still champagne. B movies are still movies. Pulp fiction is still fiction. Roleplaying that doesn't come up to your standards is still roleplaying, even if you find that offensive.

I do not agree with the initial post of this thread, but the issues raised are important. My main objections are these:

1 - roleplaying is meant to be a game for amateurs.
The players are not meant to be professional actors. This fact is a serious challenge for the gamesmith. He need to create a game with easy to read instructions, and easy to use elements. His success may be measured in the way his game is played. The initial post may be read as adressing a symptom of gamesmiths not able to release the potential of the ordinary player. "The escapist" remains locked in his shell because the game is lame.

Sidenote ---> It may be argued that the actual roleplaying is not taking place over the table, but rather inside the players mind. The "shared imaginary space" may be said to be a theoretical construction, in relation to where the roleplay has it's outspring (the individual mind). The shared imaginary space is but a vehicle for the roleplay. It is not the roleplay itself.

2 - Roleplaying takes place in the "personal imaginary place",
- and not only in a "shared imaginary space". Our inner images of what goes on in the game, our visions of what our character see, is part of roleplaying. The player use his imagination to immerse himself in the character, thus involving himself with it, playing his role. This roleplaying is frequently caused by verbal communications on what the characters do or sense, and as often it is not visible on the surface of gameplay.

Sidenote ---> Gamers playing in-character, is something I have a strong enthusiasm for, but I think this is something that has to be fascilitated by game designers. They have to find the tools to release the potential of great character play, and inspired character conversations. I am convinced these tools are there, for us to find. Until then; we must bear that some players strive to get into character, with what little help we give them.

3 - Acting and roleplaying is not the same.
Two LARP-friends of mine participated in a medieval convention, held outdoors in some old ruins. They had two collegues at the convention, being professional actors. The four of them walked about as beggar monks, prying money from visitors at the convention, in-character all the time. I ran into them several times, and saw no apparent difference in their ability to be "monks".

However; after the convention I met with my friends, and they had an interesting observation to report. The actors tired much faster than the larpers. The actors had to rest every half hour, being quite exhausted each time, while the larpers could go on, in-character, the whole day.

This observation confirmed an old suspicion of mine; that acting and roleplaying is not the same. They may be related, but is certainly not the same.

4 - The ordinary Joe is likely to be a great roleplayer.
The way you relate to the character, in acting and in roleplay, is different. The abilities you make use of, is different. The likelihood of finding a great roleplayer in an ordinary Joe, is far larger than the likelihood of him ever being a mediocre actor.

Actors are in fact not as deeply involved with their characters. Their acting is a kind of conscious mannerism, intended to manipulate a public. They try to project the illusion of a character, doing so by hard-won and very demanding theatrical skills. The actor is performing to a standard set by a critical audience, his enjoyment of the act being secondary.

The larpers on the other hand, being roleplayers, are deeply involved with their character, immersing themselves in it's imaginary personality. The roleplayer make use of unconscious abilities, learned as far back as their first childhood. These abilities are as much a part of their natural self, that their potential for great roleplay may easily be awakened, and often carried out without significant effort. Their roleplay is not primarily directed at anyone outside themselves. It is an internal process with it's own rewards. It is play for the sake of play in itself.

5 - Playful involvement is good, and critical distance is bad, for the gameplay.
The difference of acting and roleplaying is essential, and it goes to show how great a potential the most ordinary roleplayer is in possession of. It also goes to show that the stanza taken in the initial post of this thread is far from innocent.

When holding acting and roleplaying up against eachother this way, it is obvious to me that the idea of introducing a critical audience in the roleplaying game (the other players demanding certain standards to be met) is very dangerous indeed.

I have speculated for years on the importance of group dynamics in roleplaying games, and have found that one important step towards positive dynamics, is to fascilitate playful involvement by the players. If any player are left to maintain a critical distance to the game, its theme and the characters, the entire game will suffer.

This last observation may be a way of meeting the initial post of this thread, from the other side; not arguing the exclusion of certain players, but arguing the importance of including all of them, in order to create better gameplay.

I'd like to share a differente point of view on this roleplaying definition thing.

First of all, as you probably may notice in my writing, english isn't my native language. And this creates something that I find intriguing in this thread.

You see, I live in Brazil and we speak portuguese here. However, roleplaying games are still called RPGs, even in texts written in portuguese. That goes back to the time when the only gaming material availiable was imported from the US and was therefore written in english. By the time we started to have material wide availiable in portuguese, both the terms roleplaying and RPG were wide spread in use so nobody bothered translating it.

This creates an interesting effect on the definition of roleplaying for us.

First, the activity of playing an RPG is described as "jogar RPG" which means, well, playing an RPG. :-) But my point is that we don't say "roleplaying" to mean "playing an RPG". We don't do that because of many reasons and a important one is that there is no such word in portuguese. The words that come close to roleplaying are more easily translated to "acting" and, interestingly enough, simply don't feel right when describing the hobby.

We do use the words "representar" or "atuar" which basically mean "act" to describe certain modes of play, in particular first person characterization. The more common term is the first that has a more loose meaning. It describes acting as in the theather but also means "pretending" or "feigning" (is this the right word?). The second word "atuar" is more strongly tied to acting as an art form and is less commonly used to describe a mode of play in RPG (though it still used, usually in LARPs).

But the more general used expression to describe running a PC, at least with the people I play here, is "jogar um personagem" which means "playing a character" but with a strong enphasis on playing as in gaming, since "jogar" is a verb in portuguese used to describe playing a game and the verb "play" in english has other meanings.

So, when we want to say roleplaying as in Aaron's definition we simply use one of the portuguese words for acting. When we want to say roleplaying as in playing a RPG we simply use the portuguese word for playing a game and associate it with RPG.

That said, we do use the english word "roleplay" to describe an aspect of the hobby. We use it to describe everything that happens during a RPG session that isn't resolution, metagame mechanics, setting or rules discussion (and eating and going to the bathroom). That leaves us with storytelling, roleplaying (as in Aaron's definition) and some other stuff I can't really define in english. We describe all these things, or to be more precise, the sum of all these things as "roleplay".

Hope this contributes to the thread.

Andreas

It may well be that this controversy can be resolved by changing the initial position to: "there is insufficient interest in and attention paid to the act of driect portrayal in RPG". I agree with that very strongly - I think there is as much if not more overlap between RPG and acting as there is between RPG and literature, but there is almost no study of methods and techniques of portrayal.

New thread then, michael? I for one would love to jump in on that one, drama queen that I am...

Muito interesante, Andreas. The verb "jogar" is the same verb used for sports & games like chess. Which ties RPGs linguistically more to soccer ("jogar futbol") & chess than to acting & art. As you said, acting ("representar" & "atuar") are a part of RPGs, but they aren't the sole part or, necessarily, the defining part.

You know, I've seen a lot of people argue that if you don't have "game" aspects--that is, aspects that they are familiar with & associate with "games," like dice & quantified stats for characters--you're not playing an RPG. Character immersion doesn't enter into it, but "game" aspects do. The argument against that, if I recall correctly, is that, again, "roleplaying game" doesn't necessarily mean "game" in the same sense as Axis & Allies or Risk. Similarly, "roleplaying game" doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as roleplaying in a therapist's office.

Which brings us back to the idea that Aaron's idea of "roleplaying" may be the defining thing for him, but it's not the defining one for RPGs in general. Not anymore than, say, using dice. What makes an RPG an RPG, historically, is much more than acting in character or using dice. Character immersion is one technique in roleplaying games, but it's never been what defines a roleplaying game, & I haven't seen any convincing arguments as to why it should be what defines a roleplaying game.

Welcome, Aaron!
I'm afraid I disagree with your definition of roleplaying. I even disagree with the motivation for it, which seems to be from the acting side of things.

I've acted on stage. To act, you need to do the physical and the verbal (except in the fringes of mine and shout plays). To me, it's the same with Roleplaying. To make the role come to life, you need to be able to give it words and body language. Otherwise, you're playing the role badly. You need both, to some degree.

To play the role, you need to do the verbal and you need to do the physical. The best way to do the physical side is in a 3rd person narration.

[I've really enjoyed reading everyone's posts, MJ, Chris, Alan, Jack and Aaron have all been smashing!]

Philomousos wrote: Just to preface, I've found everything to be thought-provoking so far. I want to start by saying that I've irresponsibly elided two things which I did not intend to elide... this goes to my cantankerousness about artistic mediocrity and whatnot. I don't mean to include everybody who disagrees with me or who pursues the playing of roleplaying games (I'll just call them RPGs, like Rich suggested) in a way which my admittedly rarefied definition does not class as roleplaying strictly speaking. I was still reacting, unfortunately, to things entirely outside the contents of this thread. It's the people who pursue RPGs for reasons other than artistic excellence that I have no time for - people who just like to hide out in the fantasy worlds which they find more amenable than real life. I didn't mean to make it seem as if I extend my contempt to those people who pursue RPGs seriously and thoughtfully, even if those folks don't agree with a word I've said and think I'm a total nitwit.

Philomousos wrote: Christopher: Yes, I think you see what I'm saying. Though I'm curious... what part of the "snooty shit" do you substantially disagree with?