Quote from: The Butcher;436681Dude. TheRPGsite is Excluded Middle La-la-land.

This is often true.

Quote from: The Butcher;436681Dude. TheRPGsite is Excluded Middle La-la-land.

OK. I stand corrected.

Quote from: PaladinCA;436684This is often true.

There's no such thing as "often true." It's either the Truth, or a Lie. Are you with me or against me, for fuck's sake?

Quote from: jhkim;436656I don't give a damn what some dictionary says.  A dictionary definition has nothing to do with why I play - it's just a label.  

I play games because they are fun.  Sometimes it's fun to talk in my character's voice - but it can also be fun to play out other stuff without talking in my character's voice.  I've even played a mute character and had fun doing it.  

None of this had anything to do with the label.  I play RPGs because they're fun.  Let's try two reasons to speak in my character's voice:

1) You should speak in your character's voice because for all players, it's always more fun to speak in their character's voice.

2) You should speak in your character's voice because it's not a role-playing game unless everyone speaks in their character's voice.  

If it were true, #1 would be a legitimate reason to do something.  #2 is just stupid.

Well, it's not a nominal level question pundit was asking.
it's a ratio one.

Much of the point of this thread has been what advantage do you give for players who can roleplay their characters.  Sure, one can handewave sometimes and sometimes say, " I ask the bartender...", but the OP seems to be more about how much we penalize that approach, since it is not roleplaying at that second, and how much advantage does the socially-adept player get?

Quote from: RPGPundit;436612What I do think is that in RPGs you should engage in actual roleplaying.

I agree. Where I disagree, however, is the idea that the only thing that's roleplaying is speaking out loud in character.

Let me ask: Should the in-game actions of a character match the stated and demonstrated personality and traits of said character? If I'm playing a merciful paladin, should I really ride by a starving widow and children without offering them food or money to buy food?

Quote from: RPGPundit;436612...in essence, you ARE still trying to play someone more charismatic than you are...

People try to play characters who are stronger than they are. People try to play characters who are more dexterous than they actually are. People try to play characters who are wiser than they actually are. People try to play characters who are more intelligent than they actually are. People try to play characters with greater constitution than they actually have.

Should people be disallowed from all such mismatches or does it only matter in the case of charisma, social aptitude, verbal skill, etc.?

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;436743People try to play characters who are stronger than they are. People try to play characters who are more dexterous than they actually are. People try to play characters who are wiser than they actually are. People try to play characters who are more intelligent than they actually are. People try to play characters with greater constitution than they actually have.

Should people be disallowed from all such mismatches or does it only matter in the case of charisma, social aptitude, verbal skill, etc.?

Seanchai

No, that was my point.  Go back and read the post you quoted again: I was saying that even a well-spoken player is STILL trying to play someone more charismatic than he is, and it is therefore no different than someone playing a warrior stronger than he is, or a thief more dexterous than he is.  It invalidates your whole argument.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Seanchai;436743I agree. Where I disagree, however, is the idea that the only thing that's roleplaying is speaking out loud in character.

Let me ask: Should the in-game actions of a character match the stated and demonstrated personality and traits of said character? If I'm playing a merciful paladin, should I really ride by a starving widow and children without offering them food or money to buy food?

Exactly.  Some people seem to be saying that if regardless of whether you help the orphans or not, that isn't role-playing.  The only role-playing, to some people, is talking in your character's voice.  

Quote from: LordVreeg;436738Well, it's not a nominal level question pundit was asking.
it's a ratio one.

Much of the point of this thread has been what advantage do you give for players who can roleplay their characters.  Sure, one can handewave sometimes and sometimes say, " I ask the bartender...", but the OP seems to be more about how much we penalize that approach, since it is not roleplaying at that second, and how much advantage does the socially-adept player get?

I agree.  I wasn't replying directly to Pundit.  I was replying to jeff37923 (and indirectly to Benoist).  

The core of the disagreement is linked, though, in the idea that there is no role-playing in describing your character actions - that the only role-playing is speaking in your character's voice.  i.e. It doesn't matter what your character *does* - the only role-playing is what he *says*.

Quote from: jhkim;436767The core of the disagreement is linked, though, in the idea that there is no role-playing in describing your character actions - that the only role-playing is speaking in your character's voice.  i.e. It doesn't matter what your character *does* - the only role-playing is what he *says*.

That's the strawman that is being built right now, you mean.

I do not believe there is no role-playing involved in describing what your character does. I do however believe that speaking for your character is better in terms of role-playing than describing what your character is trying to say (depending on situations - it's not always the case). This to me is part of what makes role-playing enjoyable, and I will encourage it from players around the table.

Nobody's asking you to be act like a professional actor. But you have to be willing to act, at least.
Otherwise we're not playing the same game.

Quote from: jhkim;436767I was replying to jeff37923.  

The core of the disagreement is linked, though, in the idea that there is no role-playing in describing your character actions - that the only role-playing is speaking in your character's voice.  i.e. It doesn't matter what your character *does* - the only role-playing is what he *says*.

Then let me reply to you.

 It matters what your character does and says, because you are acting the role of that character. Not playing the character as a game piece by describing its actions, acting the role.

Go look up the definition of role-playing. Not your own personal definition, but the commonly accepted definition of the term that is used everyday.

Quote from: RPGPundit;435750To the end that a player shouldn't have to pick locks to play a thief, or cast spells to be a magic-user, but he should be able to effectively manage the class he chooses.  And guess what, if a player, through being "the person he is", does a bad job of handling the interpretation of a thief or a magic-user, the nature of the game itself will punish him.

Likewise, if you tell me you want to play a schemer of Machiavellian proportions,  or a charismatic orator of Shakespearian proportions, I don't expect you to actually end up as political advisor to a prince or to pen a classic monologue that will last through the ages, but you will damn well have to have some kind of capacity to know WHAT to say, WHEN to say it, and HOW to say it.  If you want to play a character who is loved by all, and then go around having your PC act like a dick or a boor to all and sundry, I will not let you roll a few dice to get off the hook.

RPGPundit

So I guess all your players are stuck playing themselves?

Quote from: jhkim;436767The core of the disagreement is linked, though, in the idea that there is no role-playing in describing your character actions - that the only role-playing is speaking in your character's voice.  i.e. It doesn't matter what your character *does* - the only role-playing is what he *says*.[/QUOTEUnderstood.
No stress.

But the ides of why the previously in-use term of 'role-play' was used for this past time is based on the idea of assuming a role.  Not just from an omniscient perspective, but the idea is to assume the role, to immerse.

So I don't make people roleplay everything, But my systems are all 'declare-roleplay-roll-recover' .  The roleplay gives a bonus or minus, normally a bonus, andoften leads to chains of this array.  It you rolplay it, I reward with experience and a better chance of success.

Quote from: Benoist;436772That's the strawman that is being built right now, you mean.

I do not believe there is no role-playing involved in describing what your character does. I do however believe that speaking for your character is better in terms of role-playing than describing what your character is trying to say (depending on situations - it's not always the case). This to me is part of what makes role-playing enjoyable, and I will encourage it from players around the table.

Nobody's asking you to be act like a professional actor. But you have to be willing to act, at least.
Otherwise we're not playing the same game.

I bolded the last sentence.  You said, and seem to still be saying, that if I have my character do things - but I don't talk in my character's voice, then I am not role-playing and thus what I am doing is not a role-playing game.  

That inherently means that you don't consider that anything of what my character actually *does* counts role-playing.  

So either:

1) What a character *does* can count as role-playing, so a player who doesn't talk as their character may still be role-playing - just a different style of role-playing.  

2) What a character does isn't role-playing, so as you say if a player doesn't talk as their character, they aren't role-playing.

Quote from: jhkim;436807That inherently means that you don't consider that anything of what my character actually *does* counts role-playing.

No. That is not what that means.

It means, if you are not willing to act, to actually speak at some point for your character, the two games we are each playing do not involve the same type of activities, do not feel the same, are not the exact same thing. That's what that means.

You are jumping to conclusions from there, disregarding all that's been said BEFORE the bolded sentence in the process.

Quote from: jhkim;436767The core of the disagreement is linked, though, in the idea that there is no role-playing in describing your character actions - that the only role-playing is speaking in your character's voice.  i.e. It doesn't matter what your character *does* - the only role-playing is what he *says*.

Nonsense. Of course what your character DOES matters; just like it matters what he says, when he says it, and how.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;436821Nonsense. Of course what your character DOES matters; just like it matters what he says, when he says it, and how.

Right.  That's what I'm saying, Pundit.  I was arguing against Benoist on this.  

Quote from: Benoist;436812No. That is not what that means.

It means, if you are not willing to act, to actually speak at some point for your character, the two games we are each playing do not involve the same type of activities, do not feel the same, are not the exact same thing. That's what that means.

Obviously they are not the exact same thing.  What I was arguing against was your claim that it wasn't roleplaying if I didn't talk in my character's voice.  

I'm saying that deciding on actions (including social ones) that are appropriate to your character is roleplaying.  Therefore, someone who says what his character is doing is roleplaying, but it is not the exact same kind of role-playing as talking in your character's voice.  Conversely, I have played in a handful of games where the only thing you do is talk in character - i.e. you never describe your character's action, because the only thing that happens in the game is talk.  This also is not the same kind of role-playing as what happens in a traditional tabletop game like D&D, but it also is role-playing.