Member Discussions

I don't mean that we should be knowledgeable about the Virtual World's system, if any, for the study of this field - but rather, that we should have some awareness of our character's philosophy. To understand this, we need to delve into the very definition of philosophy - that is, what the word means.

A philosophy is a comprehensive system of ideas about human nature and the nature of the reality we live in. It is a guide for living, because the issues it addresses are basic and pervasive, determining the course we take in life and how we treat other people. - William Thomas

Philosophy governs the ways in which we relate to life and to other people. It's about what we believe, and why we make certain decisions. Philosophy is certainly of direct tangible benefit to us; for an example of that, we need merely look to the many people on the internet these days who knowingly employ atrocious spelling and grammar for many years because they 'just don't care' . . . and make a comparison to those of us who did care, examined our own thought processes, and, subsequent to identifying the cause of our poor spelling/grammar, devised an efficient means of correcting that. Any time we turn introspective enough to not only have an awareness of our thoughts, but act on curiosity about them . . . we are engaging in philosophy.

Yet, to leave one's own method of thought unexamined is to be held captive by the workings of one's own mind; it is only by subjecting our thought processes to the same criticism which we subject the subjects themselves, that we are able to escape the restraints that hold so many thinkers prisoner of their own prejudices and shallowness. - Lady Zerika

Epistemology and ontology are twinned sciences; and, as principles, they apply to a far wider field than their mere academic study. One can no more escape them by claiming to only be employing 'common sense' than one can escape the process of healing by claiming that one has never been operated upon by a professional medic! Of common sense, many things have been said; from the brief 'Common sense isn't.' to Albert Einstein's 'Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.', people have come to the realization that 'common sense' has, in fact, no single definition, but is instead a set of loosely related guides to decision-making - in other words, an aspect of philosophy. The question now becomes: where does it cross the line? At what degree of separation between the 'academic' field and the 'common sense' can one definitively say 'To go this way, is to engage in academic study; but to go that way, why, that would merely be common sense.'? Find two people who can actually give you an answer to that, and you will find two different definitions. And since the definitions vary from person to person, is not the very act of separation [by degree] arbitrary?

Philosophical convictions are often subconscious or inarticulate. - William Thomas

Our characters need not have a conscious awareness of their own philosophy, nor be able to articulate it. But as players, we should know their philosophy - for, how else are we to play them? Oh, we could just play ourselves - by reacting to everything which happened to our character as if it were happening to us. But I think many of you will agree that this isn't roleplaying. Even when we're not playing ourselves, and we're just stealing the character concept outright from another source, we can't state that we don't have a philosophy - because, when someone asks 'Why did you speak that way, using the archaic instead of modern address form?' or 'Why did your character help that damsel?', and you answer 'Because that's how Morrolan speaks.' or 'Because he's an honorable hero.' - bingo! You're using a philosophy. Your character did that because there was a reason - even if you don't consciously acknowledge there being a 'why' to it. I had thought, however, that roleplaying - by nature - required knowing the philosophy of your character.

Something that someone said to me recently cast doubt on this. So I'm throwing it up for discussion. In the meantime, I think I may go play a harsh RPI and have my character go on a wide-spread, senseless player-killing spree. Then, when the staff tries to extract an explanation from me as to why my character did it, I'll just lecture 'Psychobabble and philosophy are best left in the proper forum. Namely, psych and philosophy classes.' - I'm sure that'll go over well.

-FireCat

(Comment added by FireCat on Wed Sep 10 2:49:27 2003)

Something that someone said to me recently cast doubt on this.

What was said to me didn't completely shatter my entire belief system. I said that it "cast doubt" on this, and I meant it - but I meant exactly that, no more. I doubted it, meaning I questioned some things I wouldn't have otherwise. I'm always open to challenging of my current beliefs, but I specifically looked to re-analyze [in light of new data, provided by others] certain beliefs which I had previously considered "proven". Don't be shocked that I still have plenty of other reasons to believe what someone had "cast doubt" upon. I'm hardly one to believe something on the basis of only a single reason anyway.

While I have no idea what you just said, I do try to always know my character's point of view on things. This is because I don't create my characters so much as grow them.

Usually, I take an idea, whether it is something I saw in a book or movie, or a portion of myself that I want to examine more closely, and from that Idea, i craft a person around it. Then i go and write the history of this person. Where was he born? Who were his parents? Did he know them? What were they like? How did he get to where he is now? What kind of an education does he have? Is he religious? Did he have any pets?

And, as I write this history, I begin to craft the character's personality, thinking about how certain events would affect the character. These all become wrapped up in his persona, and allow me to, in effect, get a good idea about how he would feel in a given situation.

One of my favorite characters was one I made for an X-men MUSH working from the Evolutions canon. He was a bright kid, good in school, enjoyed reading about history. But then his powers showed themselves, and this char's life went into a tailspin. He didn't know who or what he was anymore. Eventually, he tried to commit suicide, but chickened out at the last moment.

Instead, he ran away. For the next two years he traveled the country, usually by stowing away in the boxcars of freight trains. For all that time, he never once called home, even to let his folks know he was alive. He learned a lot in this time, about the realities of life. But he could not stop hating himself, first for being what he thought was some kind of freak, then for trying to commit suicide, then for not being able to do the deed. Eventually, he met another mutant, and was finally able to put those demons to rest. But even though they might be closed, those old wounds open from time to time, and he sometimes has relapses into his depression.

As I said, this is one of my favorite characters, and I had some really great RP with him. While you do not have to consider a character's philosophy or background to RP a char, it is, IMHO, more intense, and more consistent, if you do create a background for the char, and grow his persona out of that.

While you do not have to consider a character's philosophy or background to RP a char, it is, IMHO, more intense, and more consistent, if you do create a background for the char, and grow his persona out of that.

A philosophy is not the "growing persona out of background", though. It does not require a background [which amnesia, for instance, would erase - and it's amusing up to a point, but hardly acceptable, for new characters {especially unacceptable from old players} to explain ICly that they were just born and are only an hour old, by marking the time from their OOC chargen instead of their character's IC birth], merely an awareness of which way the character's reactions will go when presented with a stimuli. One's philosophy can be based on their "feelings", and often is; most people don't bother with the level of self-analysis required to define, much less articulate, their own philosophy. However, not being able to explain it and not being able to use it are two entirely different matters; philosophy especially covers the fundamental issues, and this includes basic questions such as "When presented with a decision - do you decide one way or another, or just not bother?", meaning that every time you make a decision - you've proven you have a philosophy. Remember, a philosophy is a system of ideas determining the course we take in life. It doesn't consist solely of the academic focus, no more than the process of healing consists solely of surgeons with several letters after their name performing a surgical operation. Even if you state that your character has absolutely no inclination one way or another, and basically flips a coin because otherwise, he'd be so balanced between options that he wouldn't do anything, this says something about the philosophy of your character. It can't be escaped. No sentient being has a choice about developing their philosophy - only about whether or not to acknowledge it. Now, if we let go of the narrow definition of philosophy [thinking of philosophy as a highly abstract and technical field, full of conundrums of interest only to academics], and look at what it truly means, can we still deny that philosophy has nothing to do with roleplaying?

It may be a philosophy different from your own [if you went to the trouble of figuring out what that was, and creating something distinct from it], or it may be your own philosophy [playing yourself], but according to the definition of philosophy, it is exactly what we are employing every time we react to stimulus or create some of our own.

-FireCat

***I had thought, however, that roleplaying - by nature - required knowing the philosophy of your character....Something that someone said to me recently cast doubt on this.***

I think it all falls under the 'what we think is rp' umbrella. A mud where global chat passes for serious rp is unlikely to be open to discussing the philosophy followed by any given character. (and unlikely to care)

Long ago in the dim recesses of time (cough) tabletop rp games gave your character a philosophy. Alignment, morals, codes of conduct, etc were part of the creation process. After a while players wanted more freedom in rp choices and more control over how their characters would react. This was a good development for experienced gamers but it seems to have spawned the situation you describe in your post. Muds where people play a character and never have a clue what he/she is all about.

I don't know who was giving you problems but I disagree with them. It is essential that any character you rp be consistant in their actions and reactions. (barring insanity, extreme grief, etc) If I rp a chacter and she never shows any consistancy then she is pretty much a cardboard cutout.

Also, on muds where consent is needed for rp storylines and character death it is essential the character (or at least the player) have a philosophy in place to dictate certain actions. If my warrior -always- responds in one way due to a code of honor then my allies can count on this and my enemies can try and exploit it. If my char is bouncing all over the place (reaction wise) rp becomes much harder and much more superficial.

Ack...eggs boiling...must run..will check back later

-Kitkat

For some reason, whenever I hear that phrase, I get a mental image of a time, long ago, when I had the bright idea of trying to eat a gingerbread house after the holidays, when its family no longer needed it [perhaps, if I'd received some sort of education regarding gingerbread houses, I might have known better]. The frosting, being made of sugar, was the sweet part, if crunchy to the point of challenging my teeth. The gingerbread, on the other hand, simply tasted like cardboard.

The reason for this was simple. The family in question had been cheap that year, and used cardboard instead of gingerbread.

So, when I think of cardboard cutouts, I imagine a wide range of sugary decorations that can be put on it - superficial sugary bits that, by themselves, may look pretty, but as a whole can be rather garish, and if you're lucky you'll break your teeth on them before realizing that the "bread" underneath has no nutritional value or taste.

-FireCat

RP is not becoming another person, it is acting as a character in a fictional situation would. In order to act as te character would, the player needs to think from the character's persective, which requires the player to be aware of the character's perceptions, goals, standards, etc. I won't go as far as saying that a player needs to identify all the rules of the character's school of thought, however I do believe that the player must be able to think from the perspective of the character, and thus must know what that perspective is. Knowing goals, morals, and values is a must, knowing the character's version of the meaning of life would be second to knowing the character's understanding of the values of the aspects of life. Very close to the same thing, but not quite. I do agree that it would enhance RP however the moment to moment of a character is more important than the grander scale.

Close enough to an answer I hope? If not, I'll take another crack at this later.

RP is not becoming another person, it is acting as a character in a fictional situation would.

This sort of attitude was the reason behind my decision to retire from roleplaying.

Close enough to an answer I hope?

You seem to be addressing something else entirely. I suspect you've confused the "root motivational forces of a character" with the "large picture"; you're insisting that all you need to do is learn what a character's day-to-day responses are, but you're missing that these day-to-day responses are indistinguishable from the "large picture" I was talking about - since they're both based on the philosophical issues, and they both require a philosophical basis to be derived from!

Reactions are far too complex to be simply made up. I could, for instance, explain to you that there is a skill which you are capable of developing within a day, and that this skill will enable you to accomplish something you have never thought of before because the very idea was inconceivable to you. Then, I explain that the day after tomorrow, an event will happen for which your normal response would NOT, in fact, be the best one - that, instead, employing this new skill to take the appropriate action, would be the best response. I could then challenge you to devise this response, to a stimulus you were not yet aware of, and take the appropriate response at the proper time for the stimulus that I have not yet specified. And explain that, if you failed to perform these steps correctly, I would be perfectly justified in considering you a failure.

I would, of course, be correct. But I won't do that, because I'm not unfair enough to demand the impossible from anyone.

It isn't necessary to decide, in advance, on every response of the character - and it's extraordinarily foolish. You can never be guaranteed of having covered enough scenarios. But knowing the fundamental qualities of your character [and specifically, your character's Psyche] will allow you to derive the proper actions from them at each time, dynamically reaching a decision every time - which does emulate how people think in the real world [or would you suggest that changing your mind never has any effect on your day-to-day decisions - that your decisions are only echoes of the past, and can never change even if the reasons behind them did?].

-FireCat

(Comment added by FireCat on Mon Sep 8 20:56:41 2003)

To clarify my first statement: it's not the "becoming another person" I find intolerable here, it's the attitude that roleplaying - by nature - can never be about real situations or real people.

I don't mean that we should be knowledgeable about the Virtual World's system, if any, for the study of this field - but rather, that we should have some awareness of our character's philosophy.

Yes indeed.

To understand this, we need to delve into the very definition of philosophy - that is, what the word means.

I disagree. Creating a personality and a historical experience are more important methinks. A well developed philosophy can and does rely solely on tradition, custom, and history. Intuition and 'common sense' flow from that. There's really no need for academic theory here as roleplaying should be fun. That is I wouldn't consider a character with a well-developed philosophical background to be any indication of whether the player will be a good roleplayer or not.

Don't let that stop you though if that's fun for you.

There's really no need for academic theory here as roleplaying should be fun.

You misunderstand me. I wrote that specifically for people who would, just as you did here, confuse philosophy with the academic study of same.

It's important to distinguish between the two because otherwise, people will declare that they have no need of philosophy, and that philosophy has no place in roleplaying a make-believe person - when, in fact, you can't roleplay a make-believe person or even be a real person without a philosophy!

There's nothing "theoretical" about philosophy itself, it is very real and an integral component of our lives. I specified that the study of it was not what I was promoting here.

You can have fun *CENSORED*ing off and being someone you normally aren't, but that doesn't mean you're roleplaying. Roleplaying isn't defined solely as "having fun". There are different requirements, which can be met whether you're having fun or not. To meet those requirements, you may need to do more than you're used to, more than was needed to simply "*CENSORED* off and have fun".

I reiterate, there is no need to engage in an academic study of the field. We merely need to avoid denying the nature of philosophy - which, as I've seen it done, is like saying "I'm not a thief, I just steal things! Isn't it fine for me and everyone else to steal whatever isn't nailed down and not be called a thief? Why the *CENSORED* do you people have to bring these legal terms into it?!?".

-FireCat

It can be about real situations and actual people, but the situations and the portrayals are never the real people or the real events. The difference is slight, but important.

Very very simple: it is key to understand what makes a character tick/what goes on in the mind of the character/the motivations, fears, goals, blah, blah, blah and so on. However, there is a scope to be considered, and thus a realistic portrayal requires less prep-work for some roles.

The disagreement we seem to have is in the scope of a philosophy and its direct effect on life. But, a philosophy to you, and a moral and values system to me are very much close to the same thing.

To put it quite bluntly, without a philosophy, it's impossible to live. You can believe that there are no reasons for when you do something, that it just happens - but that, in itself, is a philosophy. It's rather difficult to debate with someone when you can't help but confirm their premises in the process.

That's the "scope" of philosophy as impacts on life.

-FireCat

You misunderstand me. I wrote that specifically for people who would, just as you did here, confuse philosophy with the academic study of same.

In your first post you said:
The question now becomes: where does it cross the line? At what degree of separation between the 'academic' field and the 'common sense' can one definitively say 'To go this way, is to engage in academic study; but to go that way, why, that would merely be common sense.'? Find two people who can actually give you an answer to that, and you will find two different definitions. And since the definitions vary from person to person, is not the very act of separation [by degree] arbitrary?

I guessing you didn't really mean that it was possible that anyone else would indeed dare to draw those lines elsewhere.

It's important to distinguish between the two because otherwise, people will declare that they have no need of philosophy, and that philosophy has no place in roleplaying a make-believe person - when, in fact, you can't roleplay a make-believe person or even be a real person without a philosophy!

There's also the danger that some people will declare that 'you can't roleplay a make-believe person or even be a real person without a philosophy!' A fitting response is 'Harumph and Balderdash. Mind your own character. I will manage just fine without knowing my character's epistemological and ontological foundation.' And yes, role-playing is also about entertainment; entertaining your fellow players, not annoying them.

You can have fun *CENSORED*ing off and being someone you normally aren't, but that doesn't mean you're roleplaying. Roleplaying isn't defined solely as 'having fun'. There are different requirements, which can be met whether you're having fun or not. To meet those requirements, you may need to do more than you're used to, more than was needed to simply '*CENSORED* off and have fun'.

I reiterate, there is no need to engage in an academic study of the field. We merely need to avoid denying the nature of philosophy - which, as I've seen it done, is like saying 'I'm not a thief, I just steal things! Isn't it fine for me and everyone else to steal whatever isn't nailed down and not be called a thief? Why the *CENSORED* do you people have to bring these legal terms into it?!?'.

In your first post you said:
Something that someone said to me recently cast doubt on this. So I'm throwing it up for discussion.

It's apparent that you have no doubts, you didn't post it for discussion, and instead it's merely a soap box rant.

I don't find your way fun nor even interesting. If roleplaying (in muds) is not a 'fun' activity for the participants then there is no point at all in engaging in it. Now I would not role-play with a group of players who had a requirement that characters undergo a full philosophical rectal exam during creation nor for the reasoning behind every character action, or even most actions. Nay, only for those few actions that are quite significant issues in the story plot or in a PvP situation.

Your mileage can and will vary. So will mine.

I guessing you didn't really mean that it was possible that anyone else would indeed dare to draw those lines elsewhere.

Wow, you sure are getting mileage for making false assumptions about me.

I meant that it did happen - and that the "no two answers are identical" [that is, wherever one would imagine the line to be, someone else has dared to draw it elsewhere] is proof that the doing of this is indeed arbitrary.

I will manage just fine without knowing my character's epistemological and ontological foundation.

That's a pretty fine line to draw. In fact, it's almost identical to the line of "I don't need to know why I do things, I just have reasons for them."; it doesn't really disprove the point, which is that it's not really roleplaying if you're basing it off yourself.

And yes, role-playing is also about entertainment; entertaining your fellow players, not annoying them.

Again, however, this is not a primary definition. If you have fun, and amuse others, this does not mean you are roleplaying.

It's apparent that you have no doubts, you didn't post it for discussion, and instead it's merely a soap box rant.

The content of some replies, and the presentation of others, has strengthened my belief. I posted asking an honest question, and some people were kind enough to aid me by pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of various arguments for and against the matter.

I had doubts, and they were removed, for which I thank the posters who did help me.

If roleplaying (in muds) is not a 'fun' activity for the participants then there is no point at all in engaging in it.

You degrade the original and proper meaning of "roleplaying", and all those who have ever done it, with that disgusting, blind generalization.

-FireCat

I said...
If roleplaying (in muds) is not a 'fun' activity for the participants then there is no point at all in engaging in it.

You replied...
You degrade the original and proper meaning of 'roleplaying', and all those who have ever done it, with that disgusting, blind generalization.

I believe you also said on this thread...
This sort of attitude was the reason behind my decision to retire from roleplaying.

I'm active on one story-telling mush and in two tabletop FRPG groups that each meet once a month. I'm still role-playing and having a blast (aka. fun and joy). You are apparently no longer active. Perhaps you should take up another hobby, one where you can't be annoyed by others playing improperly or for the wrong reasons. Have you tried stamp-collecting?

I believe you also said on this thread...
This sort of attitude was the reason behind my decision to retire from roleplaying.

In response to a specific sentence unrelated to the subjects we're covering in this thread; and not even hinted at by anything you said.

Perhaps you should take up another hobby, one where you can't be annoyed by others playing improperly or for the wrong reasons.

I've said nothing of annoyance, nor have I even implied that your reasons for roleplaying have anything to do with why I stopped. I accept your reasons for roleplaying and have never so much as even implied that "having fun" is an unsufficient reason: what I have done is insist that we be etymologically correct when we are speaking about this subject!

You have yet to annoy me, but I am displeased with your casual disregard for the proper usage of words, which I find scarcely less contemptible than the insistence that, in a debate, a person is always right because the words mean exactly what that person wants them to mean and nothing else. If you cannot learn that words are not redefined just because you state them to be a certain way, you are but one step away from actively twisting every word you use into meaningless "support" of whatever your argument may happen to be at that time [implicitly, of course, the words never lead to any argument against them], and becoming incapable of rational discussion.

To try again to make this perfectly plain to you, you can be yourself with your friends in a non-MU* setting, in a completely mundane, workplace environment, and both be having fun and entertaining others. So why isn't this roleplaying? It has to do with the definition of roleplaying.

-FireCat

(Comment added by FireCat on Tue Sep 9 1:22:59 2003)

I'll add another proof-of-concept example.

Imagine this hypothetical situation: you are working for your boss at a construction company. Your "job" consists of lifting several large and heavy pieces of lumber for 10 hours of each day. In return for this, the boss gives you some "pay".

You find that you possess some ability to entertain your fellow workers, and, since they in turn make the work more enjoyable for you, the "job" becomes far more fun.

After a while, you begin to equate the "job" with the fun you are having and with how you are entertaining others, more than you equate it with the "work". And that's the day that the bright idea occurs to you - why not, since the "work" is so tiresome, simply stop doing the "work" while continuing your "job"?

Well, this works out fine for a while. Then the "boss" begins to no longer "pay" you, and even if you're permitted to stay around the construction site to entertain the other workers [a prospect you may engage in solely for your own enjoyment], you yourself are no longer engaged in "work" [as everyone else defines it, and always has defined it], though you might consider the "entertaining others" to itself be "work".

(Comment added by FireCat on Tue Sep 9 1:24:03 2003)

I'll add another proof-of-concept example.

Imagine this hypothetical situation: you are working for your boss at a construction company. Your "job" consists of lifting several large and heavy pieces of lumber for 10 hours of each day. In return for this, the boss gives you some "pay".

You find that you possess some ability to entertain your fellow workers, and, since they in turn make the work more enjoyable for you, the "job" becomes far more fun.

After a while, you begin to equate the "job" with the fun you are having and with how you are entertaining others, more than you equate it with the "work". And that's the day that the bright idea occurs to you - why not, since the "work" is so tiresome, simply stop doing the "work" while continuing your "job"?

Well, this works out fine for a while. Then the "boss" begins to no longer "pay" you, and even if you're permitted to stay around the construction site to entertain the other workers [a prospect you may engage in solely for your own enjoyment], you yourself are no longer engaged in "work" [as everyone else defines it, and always has defined it], though you might consider the "entertaining others" to itself be "work".

(Comment added by FireCat on Tue Sep 9 1:25:08 2003)

Uh, it would be nice if we could delete Edits within an hour of making them.

Perhaps a definition of roleplaying would be in order?

(Assuming one can be found that everyone will agree to accept.)

Kitkat

I'll have a shot at it...

Roleplaying is playing a role.
---------------
Before totally brushing this off as me being a smart arse (which to some extent I am being), think about it.

Acting is acting out a part -- there are different ways that actors go about doing this. Examples that spring to mind are method actors and character actors.

Can the method actor tell the character actor that they aren't doing the 'one and proper true type of acting'? Or vice-versa?

Everthing else from espousing philosopy to saying 'Pirates say ARGH! a lot' is a means to an ends.

Just as there are some actors that are better than others, there are roleplayers that are better than others - the method that they arrive at their destinations is more or less irrelevant.

Siggy.

Perhaps a definition of roleplaying would be in order?

(Assuming one can be found that everyone will agree to accept.)

One might indeed argue that killing everyone in sight is but another "method" of getting to the end result, "erecting a building". But if no objectively perceivable "building" is ever "erected", I question whether the "method" is replacing the "goal".

See my example of construction workers in an Edit earlier. Not everyone will agree to accept any single definition, because they're hopelessly mixed up about what meaning the word is associated with, anyway.

Subjectively, there can be no such "commonly agreed upon definition". We can only determine one objectively, and compare each of our subjective perception's to that.

That's what I did which convinced me to retire from roleplaying - because I was honest with myself about the meaning of the word, and what was really going on with it. I realized that this activity was something I was no longer willing to participate in, because the benefits I was gaining from it weren't really what everyone was using it for.

I'll continue doing what I was doing, I just won't call it roleplaying anymore ;)

-FireCat

***Not everyone will agree to accept any single definition, because they're hopelessly mixed up about what meaning the word is associated with, anyway.***

Isn't that statement a tad presumptious? You know (with no input from anyone else) that everyone in the discussion will be unwilling to accept a single definition? Then you go and (somewhat rudely) proclaim everyone confused.

If you would rather not deal with a definition that is okay, but don't assume no one else wants to or is willing to.

Kitkat

Isn't that statement a tad presumptious? You know (with no input from anyone else) that everyone in the discussion will be unwilling to accept a single definition?

Not really; I have had input, and it clearly shows an unwillingness to separate "roleplaying" from the definitions already decided on by that person.

Then you go and (somewhat rudely) proclaim everyone confused.

Note that I said, in the same sentence, "Not everyone will agree to accept any single definition, because they're hopelessly mixed up about what meaning the word is associated with, anyway." - "they're" is a contraction of "they are", and "they" defaults to the last . . . from the context, "the not-everyone people who will not agree to accept any single definition". To literally translate my sentence, the last thing I'm saying is that everyone is confused - only expanding to plural everyone that matches the confusion I'd just described.

If you would rather not deal with a definition that is okay, but don't assume no one else wants to or is willing to.

I proposed a definition to work with. It's specified in the subject line: the "literal" one. I'm sure that plenty of people will want to work with this definition, and be willing to, but I contest the assumption that everyone can agree on it.

You might disqualify some people from being counted towards "everyone", of course, but that form of exclusion isn't proven as rational yet.

-FireCat

-- One might indeed argue that killing everyone in sight is but another 'method' of getting to the end result, 'erecting a building'. But if no objectively perceivable 'building' is ever 'erected', I question whether the 'method' is replacing the 'goal'. --

I'll assume this was directed at my post, seeing I mentioned methods.

Yes, you could argue that killing everything in sight is a method -- it would depend on the context.
That is, you couldn't instantly assess that someone killing everything in a room isn't roleplaying.
Example:

A man in a room is killing all the rabbits. When you ask him why he is doing this he could answer:

'Because dude - they're 3 exp and I'm only 30 TNL!'
I would say this isn't someone roleplaying.

But if he answered along the lines of:
'These little buggers are breeding out of control, soon a plague of them will destroy the crops and leave the farmers with a hard winter ahead...'
I would say he is.

Or even:
'I'm a psycopath, I kill everything'
Is a stretch, but ultimately even he is (to an extent) playing the role of his character (maybe a cliche character and a very poor performance, but nevertheless he is).

-----

Now onto building.. If no building was ever erected (past tense) but I saw building (present tense) was taking place then I would say that they are slow builders.
But at what point is your character 'roleplayed' (past tense) -- the completion of roleplaying that character?

When he dies? When you're playing, you are 'building', and you may see 'progress'..

So If I never see a completion of roleplaying then I am not doing it?

-------
As for the other building metaphor, doesn't really hold much water for me. Mainly because such things as 'job' and 'work' are fairly well defined.

I work (Physical or mental effort or activity directed toward the production or accomplishment of something.)
at my job ( A regular activity performed in exchange for payment, especially as one's trade, occupation, or profession)

And it's pretty easy to see that someone dicking off on the construction site isn't doing his job...

As for Roleplaying, we can see that it already has a definition:

v. role-·played, role-·play·ing, role-·plays
v. tr.
To assume or represent in a drama; act out: “Participants are encouraged to pass on leads about jobs... and to role-play interview situations with each other” (Hatfield MA Valley Advocate).

v. intr.
To assume or act out a particular role: “When I hire people I role-play with them... to see how they take pressure” (Peter Schrag).

n.
Role-playing.

(www.dictionary.com)

I think what people don't agree on is what 'good roleplaying' is, and that is something thats subjective.

Example:

C is a programming language (theres my simple definition -- just as my roleplaying one was).
You'd be pretty hard pressed to disprove that.

I could say 'I program in C' and by of that say:

p = p + 1;

Now lets say another coder on the board looks at that and says 'HEY! You're not coding in C!' and used the example :

p ++;

Both are correct, both achieve the same result (increment p by 1), but both have a different style - based on 2 people and their preference. Their methods are different.

In the end they are both C, and will both work.

Siggy.

"A man in a room is killing all the rabbits. When you ask him why he is doing this he could answer:

'Because dude - they're 3 exp and I'm only 30 TNL!'
I would say this isn't someone roleplaying."

Exactly how is this not roleplaying? If your character notices that killing rabbits somehow makes him stronger, killing rabbits becomes a legitimate in-character means to an end.

*Note: I'm not trying to troll here.. genuinely interested in the reasoning behind discounting EXP/level gain recognition as legitimate roleplaying while implementing them as cornerstone subsystems in the game mechanics.

In that example? Because there is no such thing as 3 experience points or a level.

If he was in character his answer may have been "Because I've found that killing rabbits makes me stronger"

Stats, levels, THACO, experience points -- your character wouldn't normally know these things, you the player use them to define parts of your character.

You could say 'My character has an 18 Strength!'
But your character would only know he was exceptionally strong.

what I have done is insist that we be etymologically correct when we are speaking about this subject!


Role-playing -
An instance or situation in which one deliberately acts out or assumes a particular character or role.

Role -
A part, or character, performed by an actor in a drama; hence, a part of function taken or assumed by any one; as, he has now taken the role of philanthropist.

French rôle, from Old French rolle, roll of parchment (on which an actor's part was written), from Latin rotula, diminutive of rota, wheel.

Playing -
To engage in sport or lively recreation; to exercise for the sake of amusement; to frolic; to spot.

OE. pleien, AS. plegian, plegan, to play, akin to plega play, game, quick motion, and probably to OS. plegan to promise, pledge, D. plegen to care for, attend to, be wont, G. pflegen; of unknown origin. [root]28. Cf. Plight, n.


Looks like I've nailed the for the purposes of entertainment or fun part of the definition, etymologically speaking of course.

Nyar wrote:
RP is not becoming another person, it is acting as a character in a fictional situation would. In order to act as the character would...

Looks like Nyar nailed the acting part of the definition, etymologically speaking of course.

You had something else in mind? Perhaps not etymology?










(Comment added by Tyche on Tue Sep 9 20:19:52 2003)

You have yet to annoy me, but I am displeased with your casual disregard for the proper usage of words, which I find scarcely less contemptible than the insistence that, in a debate, a person is always right because the words mean exactly what that person wants them to mean and nothing else. If you cannot learn that words are not redefined just because you state them to be a certain way, you are but one step away from actively twisting every word you use into meaningless "support" of whatever your argument may happen to be at that time [implicitly, of course, the words never lead to any argument against them], and becoming incapable of rational discussion.

Pot kettle black.

I was inclined to agree with the 'fun' aspect simply because these are roleplaying GAMES.

So we may as well slap game in there too:

(The first entry seemed most applicable - don't want to give 3 pages of useless junk).

game
n.
An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime: party games; word games.

(www.dictionary.com)