Let's have it out: rollplay vs roleplay. Are the categories bunk? Do they really express some underlying truth about RPGing? Can you do them both while chewing gum? Should people just shut the fuck up? And any other talking points you may have.

I think it's a valid distinction that goes back to the beginning of the hobby. My decades-running D&D campaign (starting in 1e) had two players who loved tactical combat, playing a magic-user and a thief, and one player who loved nothing more than role-playing out town council meetings (the cleric) and one who was a bit of both (the paladin).

The problem comes in when gamers take these distinctions and try to put people down for not playing the "one true way" (TM).

In the early days of 3e I saw a LOT of this, with reviewers grabbing up every dungeon crawl module that was released and giving them horrible reviews, because they were dungeon crawls.

This is also about the time when the "kill things-loot-rinse repeat" form of game started to be snidely called "video-gamey".

I think Temple of Elemental Evil, Tomb of Horrors and Isle of the Ape are the best modules ever written, and have seen a LOT of role-playing go down in those adventures.

So you're saying that 'rollplaying' equals tactical combat and 'roleplaying' equals character acting?

It's a fucking insult, that's what it is. Even the "gamist"/"narrativist" bullshit isn't laden with as much bile and derision. It's simply not a valid dichotomy for 99% percent of gamers.

So are some people using them as synonyms for 'gamism' and 'narrativism'?

I think it's a valid set of categories, but you can do them both at the same time. They're not mutually exclusive like some will tell you.

Quote from: droogSo are some people using them as synonyms for 'gamism' and 'narrativism'?

I suppose some do however I see the role/roll as more ends of a spectrum than the distinct categories gamism/narrativism implies.  Despite what G/N/And sometimes S became, I still feel they're better descriptions of a game's rule focus rather than player focus.  Roll/role, and all levels inbetween is a much better way of how I categorize my own play.

Quote from: James McMurrayI think it's a valid set of categories, but you can do them both at the same time. They're not mutually exclusive like some will tell you.

Fine, but what do you actually mean by it? Same as above?

Quote from: droogSo are some people using them as synonyms for 'gamism' and 'narrativism'?

Forsaking Forgeisms, as always, I prefer to invoke the classic archetypes of the Method Actor (who cares only about acting the roles of characters and exploring the game world) and the Fantasy Wargamer (who cares only about tactical challenges, mechanical rewards, and learning and mastering the game system).

Accordingly, I'd set my own role/roll ratio at 35%/65%.

Quote from: droogSo you're saying that 'rollplaying' equals tactical combat and 'roleplaying' equals character acting?

Essentially yes. Of course everyone likes some action now and then, but my player who I identified as the role-player was perfectly happy with a session that involved not a single combat.

In order, the paladin's player, who I identified as a mix, then the thief's player were not totally happy with that type of session, and the magic-user's player (someone who was a hardcore tactical player- also the first player I knew who played Diablo and Everquest- go figure) was bored out of his skull by a session without combat.

Chuck

Quote from: YamoForsaking Forgeisms, as always, I prefer to invoke the classic archetypes of the Method Actor (who cares only about acting the roles of characters and exploring the game world) and the Fantasy Wargamer (who cares only about tactical challenges, mechanical rewards, and learning and mastering the game system).

But roll/role doesn't seem to describe those things very accurately. Say you're a fantasy wargamer: surely a lot of your time is going to be spent planning and thinking, not rolling. It's quite cerebral.

On the other hand, you might be playing DitV, where your method acting is directed by a stream of dice. See what I'm saying?

I think they are flawed categories but I read what Yamo had to say about this in another thread and... yeah, the fact they are used extensively by a lot of gamers (and I'm not just talking about internet culture) means something.

These words haven't had staying power by accident. People were trying to categorize/define their way of playing. Now, granted, I think the categorization is flawed but it's a bit late to change that.

There is a simple, undenying fact: people who are looking for other gamers often feel the need to describe the playing experience. They are looking for like-minded people.

I've been in a lot of music bands and a lot of musicians feel unesasy about categorising their music. Yet when it was time to fill an open spot in the band, we did our best to put into words and categories and influences our music (that was before the days of the internet craze). It was certainly flawed but still useful.

Quote from: droogBut roll/role doesn't seem to describe those things very accurately. Say you're a fantasy wargamer: surely a lot of your time is going to be spent planning and thinking, not rolling. It's quite cerebral.

On the other hand, you might be playing DitV, where your method acting is directed by a stream of dice. See what I'm saying?

I don't consider DitV to be an RPG, as it fails to meet the list of qualifications in my sig.

Also, I already gave you my definition of "rollplay" and it didn't include not thinking. You'll notice that I didn't define them literally.

Okay, given that roleplaying is the default word for the activity, is rollplaying inherently a sneer?.

Quote from: droogBut roll/role doesn't seem to describe those things very accurately. Say you're a fantasy wargamer: surely a lot of your time is going to be spent planning and thinking, not rolling. It's quite cerebral.

On the other hand, you might be playing DitV, where your method acting is directed by a stream of dice. See what I'm saying?

Being a "roll-player" does not involve not thinking.

Some people who use it as an insult might interpret it that way, but I haven't seen anyone in this thread use it that way.

To me the distinction lies in how much enjoyment you derive from combat/levelling up versus character immersion/role-playing.