Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Montola, October 21, 2005, 06:27:11 AM
Quote from: Mark Johnson on October 21, 2005, 04:21:47 PMRon is going to kill me here, but one an alternate analysis for this as a role playing game is that regardless of Killcrazy's intentions, actual play has generated a thematic question... "What is the price of fair play and decency?" The question will probably be answered in this scenario as "death with honor." None of this has been addressed mechanically and one of the players isn't addressing the concept at all, but the interactions between the players and the system as whole has created a (very limited) role playing game regardless. Another analysis is that it isn't actually a role playing game because the power to define and redefine the game world is NOT allocated to participants of the game.
Quote from: JoshuaThis is a relatively minor nitpick, but you're assuming that player-characters (or equivalents) are a necessary element of roleplaying? Your definition here does not assume one PC per player (so Troupe Play is still in), and does not assume that there must be a GM (so GMless play is still in) -- am I reading this right? I suppose it's not really "roleplaying" if there is no role to play, but there's something about this that strikes me as problematic.
Quote from: ChrisNow your definition does work for role play games and wargames as well (since they are just a short jump from D+D) but as the Hadith says "Actions are judged by intentions." I don't think we can accidentally role play.
Quoteof course these personalities are always anthropomorphic in a sense -- you can play a stone or a teapot if you wish, but then you end up creating an anthropomorphic personality for that teapot.
QuoteThat is, I think everyone here is thinking that if X = Role-playing, and Game X includes Role-playing, then it's automatically a Role-playing Game. Markus is that your intent? Or are you not implying anything of the sort? I think that we're jumping the gun on making that association. By this sort of logic, the old-schoolers who say that a RPG like Over the Edge is not a RPG, because it in no way fits the definition of "game." So we'd be forced to term it "Role-playing Diegesis" or some such to replace the missing term. Rather, the definition of RPG is at this point a traditional one, and not based on the definitions of role-playing, nor of game.
Quote from: Montola on October 26, 2005, 02:32:19 AMSo I'm not saying that any game ruleset enabling role-playing is a role-playing game; actually I'm saying that you can scrap the rulesets and it's still role-playing.
QuoteIn that case I'm wondering about the second of your three criteria. If role-playing occurs outside of a "game" do the participants necessarily "recognize the existence of a power hierarchy"?I do think there's something important there, in the sense that "to roleplay" one must allow oneself to be subject to some externalized authority, or be implicated in some structure, which constrains one's contributions to the process. Perhaps "recognize" is too strong a word?