I'm doing it again, pulling a quote from the other thread and responding to it here, because I believe the topic being discussed belongs better here than there. I hope this sort of thing is okay.

Quote from: LordVreeg;353058I very specifically phrased my comment as describing a continuum as opposed to a nominal value: i.e., "Less of a Roleplaying game" as opposed to, "Not a Roleplaying game".  Because of course it is still Roleplaying; it is just a shift down the continuum, and in many cases, a small shift.

Deciding that you want your character to 'discover' a road is still, to me, a metagaming construct, stepping outside the character and the character's view.  Metagaming is the opposite of roleplaying.  And therefor, I stand by the statement, " it is less of a role playing game and more shared narrative game."

For me, this definition of the act of role-playing as the immersive act of seeing a fictional world from the point of view of a fictional character, responding to the fiction and making decisions from that point of view is just far too narrow. I would call that a specific aspect of role-playing, but not its entirety. Acting in a "meta-game" way, such as the example above of "discovering" a road is not the opposite of role-playing, it is also role-playing. I simply don't agree with the continuum that you're proposing. I think the act of "role-playing" needs a better definition than that, a definition that is more inclusive of the activities involved with playing a role-playing game.

Quote from: 2f

Quote from: Originally Posted by LordVreegI very specifically phrased my comment as describing a continuum as opposed to a nominal value: i.e., "Less of a Roleplaying game" as opposed to, "Not a Roleplaying game". Because of course it is still Roleplaying; it is just a shift down the continuum, and in many cases, a small shift.

Deciding that you want your character to 'discover' a road is still, to me, a metagaming construct, stepping outside the character and the character's view. Metagaming is the opposite of roleplaying. And therefor, I stand by the statement, " it is less of a role playing game and more shared narrative game."

For me, this definition of the act of role-playing as the immersive act of seeing a fictional world from the point of view of a fictional character, responding to the fiction and making decisions from that point of view is just far too narrow. I would call that a specific aspect of role-playing, but not its entirety. Acting in a "meta-game" way, such as the example above of "discovering" a road is not the opposite of role-playing, it is also role-playing. I simply don't agree with the continuum that you're proposing. I think the act of "role-playing" needs a better definition than that, a definition that is more inclusive of the activities involved with playing a role-playing game.

PLease cross post at will.  I actually appreciate your atttempts to keep things where they might stay in topic.  it's refreshing.

"In role-playing games, metagaming is the use of out-of-character knowledge in an in-character situation. A character played by a metagamer does not act in a way that reflects the character's in-game experiences and back-story."

I would say that, "the immersive act of seeing a fictional world from the point of view of a fictional character, responding to the fiction and making decisions from that point of view" covers the definition well.  Whether in terms of the orignal meaning of the definition or it's psychological uses, being in-character is critical to this definition, absolutely fundamental.  
 
You are thinking purely from a current gaming viewpoint, i.e., describing something that happens in a roleplaying game as roleplaying because it happens in the game.  

This ignores and frankly contradicts the meaning of the word, which has always involved at it's root an inclusion of an 'in-character' component.  It is actually circuitious false logic, since the term, "Roleplaying game' was chosen to describe the games that were being played due to the activities that were going on at that time, and the term predates the game.

LordVreeg, I agree completely. The history of roleplaying, at its root, was the discovery of the first-person experience.

But that was a long time ago, and at least if you're going to have any hope of communicating, I'm thinking these days that the term "immersion" may have to be surrendered.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;353229LordVreeg, I agree completely. The history of roleplaying, at its root, was the discovery of the first-person experience.

But that was a long time ago, and at least if you're going to have any hope of communicating, I'm thinking these days that the term "immersion" may have to be surrendered.

Perhaps I *am* a throwback/dinosaur.  
Sigh

your comment about communication is very timely, Elliot.

My issue above was partially lexicon-derived.  I doubt the term immersion needs to be mothballed, but a reintroduction of how it, Roleplaying and metagaming interact does seem to be in order.

Not to speak in 'Pundit',  but the terminology has been shanghaied.

It has. Might have a look at this.

Fucking brilliant work, Elliot.
I mean that.

And timely, as well.

But I won;t surrender the term.  I will, however, admit to needing to define early in these convos' where it comes from.  

Tying this back into the title,
The misunderstanding of the term, "Roleplay", in it's later incarnation due to it's very use in the phrase, "roleplaying game", has in fact contributed to the issue.

Quote from: Jason Coplen;352885It's preference. You're all for rolling dice when I'm not. Seeing as how we don't play in the same game, it's fine. We might argue too much if we did.

Ok, I don't fully agree with your assessment about fighting. Or would you mean once the combatants begin moving around? I can buy that much better than I can buy you can tell as soon as you see someone.

Yeah, it's bullocks.  I've done some boxing and I have a friend whom I used to beat soundly; however, I've never seen him lose a real fight, simply because he's a hell of a lot meaner than I am.  If you saw the two of us together, you'd probably say I was the more dangerous of the two.   But you'd be wrong.  WAAAY wrong.