TheRPGSite

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.

Quote from: droogBut roll/role doesn't seem to describe those things very accurately.

Perhaps true in the beginning but probably irrelevant now. The words have had staying power.

"Gay" doesn't describe homosexuality very accurately either. In fact, it doesn't describe homosexuality at all.

Quote from: droogOkay, given that roleplaying is the default word for the activity, is rollplaying inherently a sneer?.

Among those who use it yes.

It's meant to describe the type of player who sees an NPC and rolls initiative.

Quote from: droogOkay, given that roleplaying is the default word for the activity, is rollplaying inherently a sneer?.

It's inherently a cheesy play on words. :)

Anyway, I'm just trying to demonstrate that it can be a meaningful way to analyze play (and player) styles, if you take it out of an insulting context.

Quote from: YamoI 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.

Yes, I read your definition and I understand what you mean by it. I want to know if that's what everybody else means by it.

For the purposes of this thread, DitV fits your description. But, relax, I'm not trying to force Forgey stuff on you. It's just that most games don't go that sort of thing very well.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckBeing a "roll-player" does not involve not thinking.

Yes I get that. I'm talking about what the word seems to imply (ie rolling dice).

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckAmong those who use it yes.

Well, that can't be true, since I've known people people who didn't use it as a sneer. As usual, a bit of perspective might help.

Some people use it as a sneer, some people don't.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckIt's meant to describe the type of player who sees an NPC and rolls initiative.

The behavior you refer to is more often refered to as "hack n' slash", I believe.

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

Nope, two different false dichotomies.

"Rollplaying" has the inherent bias that dice are bad. Most of the times I've seen it used this avoidance goes beyond sheer common sense. It's some kind of "anti-gamism". If at all, the Forgites use more mechanical systems (whether it's dice or bean counting) to improve narrativism.

Guys who use "Rollplaying" are probably the same who would use "Rulemaster".

I don't like to roll for everything. Some players would probably like it if I rolled more Diplomacy and avoided judging their performance. But I don't see some kind of invisible barrier between rolling dice and acting it out. Those two aren't mutual exclusive.

Quote from: droogOkay, given that roleplaying is the default word for the activity, is rollplaying inherently a sneer?.

Yes--I agree that it is.

This is true of many, probably all of the gamer classification systems. That is:

1. One class is obviously the preferred, "correct" one. Others are, at best, treated patronizingly.

2. More important, the unprivileged class practically vanishes in discussion of what people actually enjoy. That is, once the details of the value system are understood, everyone believes that they're playing the "right" way. In practice, the "other" way is always something that someone else is doing. "Roll playing" is really just a way of saying, "more combat (or more reliance on mechanics) than I, personally, like." Nevermind that somebody else out there would judge the speaker's game as "roll playing".

It's like the world of audio. I assemble a system of carefully-matched components with quality cabling. Anyone who spends markedly less than I do is a philistine; anyone who spends more (say, on separate CD transport and D/A converter, and $100/ft. speaker cables) is a looney.

The categories in short are just vectors indicating relative position in a continuum. The only way to bring a degree of objectivity into the discussion is to either (a) sample the population and create normative borders based on the distribution (direct or normalized quartiles, or possibly empirical observation of some kind of modal clustering), or (b) claim an inherent qualitative method of distinguishing categories, such as "feedback cycles".

(a) is expensive. Some work has been done in market research by WotC. I got  this link (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html) from a discussion that appeared earlier on this board. Unfortunately the data and methodology aren't publicly available. But if we take the conclusions at face value, they tell us that there really are empirical clusters in the gamer population. However, they don't tell us how to figure out where someone stands in graph. Just as a person's self-description as "centrist" or "moderate" politically may have little relationship to their actual position in the political spectrum relative to the rest of the population, the perception of value or identity in a given category can easily overwhelm empirical or normative analysis. (I.e., people who pick up on the positive connotations of ""role-player", or who identify with the implicit complaint against "roll-players", are going to self-identify as the former unless there are clear standards and benchmarks for categorization.)

As for (b), well, I'm skeptical.

I have no idea what you guys are going on about, because I rolleplay....:D

Regards,
David R

You're French?

Quote from: droogYou're French?

No, but I run games that way :D

Regards,
David R

Quote from: droogYes I get that. I'm talking about what the word seems to imply (ie rolling dice).

What the word implies is that someone games differently than you, therefore you decry them as bad.

See also: video game-y, monte haul, hack n' slash, munchkin

The terms themselves come and go, but there's always a segment of the gaming populace who thinks their way is the one true way and everyone else's game is shit.

Quote from: Consonant DudeWell, that can't be true, since I've known people people who didn't use it as a sneer. As usual, a bit of perspective might help.

Some people use it as a sneer, some people don't.

Yes, clearly what I meant was that everyone uses the term perjoratively all the time, in every instance.

QuoteThe behavior you refer to is more often refered to as "hack n' slash", I believe.

The terms are the same thing. Just like monte haul and munchkin and video game-y.

Someone's game is different than yours to a degree that you would find unacceptable, so therefore their game is shit (even though you're not playing in it, never have and never will).

There's been a segment of the gaming populace like this from its earliest days.

What can you say, some people are assholes.

Elliot, I'd just add to your post that there are obviously people identifying with the term 'rollplaying' as well. I suppose you can see that in the sense of reclaiming identity (cf. 'nigga'), at the cost of some clarity.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckWhat can you say, some people are assholes.

I myself am guilty of using the term 'hack-and-slash' a long time ago, before I gained some perspective.

But what I'm trying to do is see whether these particular terms have any coherence. It's been argued both ways.

I always thought when one uses the term rollplaying they were refering/deriding the fact, that certain systems relied on dice rolls to determine aspects of rpgs that normaly one would role play - social interactions for example. This made it seem immature and some how wargame -ish. After all it is supposed to be a roleplaying game.

So, even though there was a lot of roleplaying going on in a roll heavy system, the mere fact of having to rely on dice rolls meant that your games were somehow inferior to what is actualy supposed to happen in a roleplaying game. (Nevermind the fact, that you could have been exploring some really heavy stuff in your rollplaying adventure)

So, no I don't really think there is a difference between between roll and role in terms of what exactly happens around most gaming tables, but it sure does mean something on online rpg discussions - which lets face, really has very little relevence (online discussions) to most gamers.

I play mostly with people who game as opposed to gamers. I can't articulate the difference, and yeah I know ol' JimBob goes "if you play rpgs, you are a gamer" , but I still think there is a difference. And one of the things that seems to preoccupy most gamers is this roll/role debate...

Regards,
David R

As I see it so far, we've got the following oppositions:

Tactical combat vs character acting
Gamism vs Narrativism (?)
Fantasy Wargaming vs Method Acting
Lots of dice vs few dice
Violent vs thoughtful (?)
More combat vs less combat
Heavy rules vs light rules (?)

Quote from: droogFine, but what do you actually mean by it? Same as above?

I consider a minmaxer a rollplayer, and someone who enjoys being in character a roleplayer.

QuoteGamism vs Narrativism (?)

We hates it.

What if you scored points for quality of narrative and/or improvisational acting?  I can understand Game >> Not Game, and Narrative >> Not Narrative... but Game and Narrative aren't on the same spectrum, let alone being two discreet points on that spectrum that represent "Game" and "Narrative.

Here -- since we can't ever get away from it, let's fix GNS.  

Instead of being G, N, or S, all games have varying amounts of G, N or S in them.  Other letters too.  They're not interdependent though -- you can have a lot of one without having to have less of any others.  If you've got a game with lots of N in it, you might want to look at some GNS stuff about N.  You might have lots of S in it too -- so don't forget that stuff as well.

Now, if JimBobOz is correct, this won't catch on without a funky name so that people can show their RPG theory cred by dropping it into conversations.  So let's call it the Fruitcake Model.  It's the holiday season, fruitcake has lots of different stuff in it, blah, blah, blah...

I'll look into setting up a website, wiki, and online store for the Fruitcake Model, but we can start jargonizing with it right away.

Looking at Rolle's Theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolle's_theorem), and living in Canada (c'est magnifique!) I'm definitely a Rolle Player.

I think there are two distinct context that the terms can be used in.

The first is the common usage. In every case where I've heard it simply used as a term it's been a sneer. It's I-game-better-than-you. The speaker has always been the "roleplayer" except for a very few cases where the speaker was being decidedly contrarian--but was still better-than-the-target.

The second is when someone is trying to determine the sort of etymology of the terms. In this conversation people are asking (as we see here) "what exactly does that mean" or are using stated assumptions about what the terms mean ("using the dice is seen as implicitly contrary to 'story' which is bunk") and talking from there.

In this case, I think there's a theory that people mean something specific by the term. I doubt that's really true. Roll-playing is certainly some kind of spectrum for hack-and-slash but the spectrum is entirely based on the person speaking. One person's soulful roleplayin' is someone else's weak, shallow, roll-playing.

I think it's a personal value statement and there isn't much beyond that.

-Marco

Quote from: James McMurrayI consider a minmaxer a rollplayer, and someone who enjoys being in character a roleplayer.

Don't Hate the Player Hate the Game ;)

Quote from: MarcoIn this case, I think there's a theory that people mean something specific by the term.

It's more like a theory that people think the term means something specific.

I don't hate either styles of play. I enjoy both. Most of the players in our group are roll players first, but not afraid of roleplaying.

@James McMurray:  That wasn't meant to be directed at you personally.  Your post was just the best one to quote to work in that lyric :)

People have used "rollplaying" in a derogatory way for ages.  I bought into that way of thinking back in the 80s, and in hindsight it was pretty dumb.  I'm starting to see people use it in a reclaimed way, which is kinda cool -- but it still usually comes up as a snide remark.

I think roleplaying is the method through which you interact with the gameworld in an RPG.  You don't need to be standing on your chair and giving a shakesperean performance -- even saying that your character goes over to the chest and searches for traps is roleplaying.  If there's no roleplaying at all... it's probably an abstract boardgame of some kind. :)

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckYes, clearly what I meant was that everyone uses the term perjoratively all the time, in every instance.

If you don't mean it, don't say it.

I've heard the term enough to know there are various meanings. Saying "people mean X when they say rollplaying" is wrong, no matter how you cut it.

And no, rollplaying and hack n' slash are not the same. At least they aren't for everybody.

"rollplaying" is a phenomenon that exists, its when people play an RPG as if it was entirely mechanics-based, using that in place of actual playing in character.

This was something that originated in the earliest days of D&D, "rollplaying vs. roleplaying" was initially an argument made within the D&D game.

The problem was that subsequently, the Swine took over the terms to try to paint the RPGs they disliked (D&D, in the case of Vampire, who used the "roll vs. Role" thing not just in the original Vampire but in the latest WoD 2e, just so that you don't think its all in the past) as being "all rollplaying".  These days, when someone uses that phrase its almost certainly the case that they're a Swine (either WW or Forge variety) and they're just using it as a mindless, meaningless insult against D&D.

In fact, its particularly ironic in the case of Forge games, almost all of which could be much more readily accused of being "rollplaying", since almost all of them insist on trying to resolve anything that normal gamers resolve through roleplaying by the use of gimmicky mechanics instead.

RPGPundit

Thank you for that message from our sponsor.

Quote from: droogElliot, I'd just add to your post that there are obviously people identifying with the term 'rollplaying' as well. I suppose you can see that in the sense of reclaiming identity (cf. 'nigga'), at the cost of some clarity.

Yes.

Also, what Marco said.

The terms have become completely useless. Whatever they might have had to say one time is concealed behind the fact that introducing them to a discussion immediately and very reliably poisons the well. It comes with a bias laden with value judgement, hindering further communication instead of making it easier. Even GNS is a better model than that.

Back in the day, I can recall a different dichotomy attached to the roll versus role.

When you used metagame information, you were roll playing.  When your character acted only on information he knew, you were role playing.

This was the distinction; different then hack 'n slash, which meant you preferred to shoot first and shoot later; different than munchkin, which meant you gamed the rule system to come up with the most powerful character possible; different than gamer, which meant you focused on strategy and tactics as opposed to plot/story.

YMMV, IMHO, etc.

Most people think of the "role" in roleplaying as in "a theatrical role", but here's a somewhat different take on what "role" mean, from a noteworthy source...

Over on Dragonsfoot, Mike said

Quote from: MikeI realize the term "roleplaying" was not used right at first, but when it was used, what did the term ROLE signify? Today most people consider role to mean you invent a fictional persona complete with emotions and feelings and then somehow try to faithfully become that person. I suspect that it was not nearly so pretentious way back in the day, that role simply meant you had a job to do (I'm the cleric!) or perhaps the psychological sense of role-play (what would you do if you were in this situation?) Was there a pretentious thespian elite right from the beginning?

To which Gary Gygax responded

Quote from: Gary GygaxHeaven forefend!

Back in the day all the participants realized it was nothing more than a game for diversion and amusement, did not pretend to thespianism or consider play an "art form."

These days some do give themselves airs in order to try to elevate their hobby activity into something grander in the eyes of others, perhaps even to fool themselves.

I must say that you absolutely nailed the sense of what the term role-playing was meant to mean--a role in the game and role assumption in regards to problem solving.

Cheers,
Gary

So really, "Roleplaying" might not mean what you think it means... ;)

I think you want to be careful not to read too much into his statements; it mainly just means that back then people didn't think it was "Art". Its not that they didn't make backstories and play in character with their PCs. They clearly did.

RPGPundit

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).

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

Method actor versus Wargamer is as good a distinction as any. Under that criteria my breakdown is about 80%+ for method actor and less than 20%+ for wargamer. I go out of my way to put my own characters in terrible danger, if that's what their personality demands.

Another important question that ought to be raised in this context however is what is the role (ahem) of rolling? What is it supposed to represent?

Quote from: RPGPunditsince almost all of them insist on trying to resolve anything that normal gamers resolve through roleplaying by the use of gimmicky mechanics instead.

Or, as one commentator on HeroQuest said: It narrates the combat and rolls for the social interaction.

Not quite true, but still +1 insightful.