Quote from: dragoner;768312I don't think there is a huge difference either way, I have seen people slip in and out of both without a major problem.

Likewise.  In fact, it seems to be the norm.

Anybody who says "You're not role playing unless...." needs to have their tongue introduced to your pee hole.

^^ Yeah, I agree. I find myself using both types with regularity. I like the active/descriptive terms--they're useful. Somehow I missed that section on my read-through, though.

Quote from: Omega;768515Dragon 102, page 8.

So in otherwords inspiration points are just fine and NO you aren't your character like some here insist on pain of stupidity, yes? It seems to me FUN is the point not some flexible definition of roleplaying made up by someone not at my table.

Quote from: Mr. Kent;768624^^ Yeah, I agree. I find myself using both types with regularity. I like the active/descriptive terms--they're useful. Somehow I missed that section on my read-through, though.

The actual terms themselves are why I started the thread, as they stood out to me as useful as well in light of previous discussions. The linked Gygax articles seems to hit the same notes and of course the 1st/3rd person descriptors have been used forever but as one poster said this might be the first time D&D itself has made the distinction.

Also I don't want to be seen as one of these assholes who are obsessed with rpg terminology. Like the guy who came up with Magic Tea Party? Fuck that guy.

It does seem the case that virtually everyone uses some mix of both methods. I doubt anyone who wasn't online ever bothered to make the distinction in the first place. As much as I talk about hating in-character dialogue, I still do it, and the concepts are not something we ever discussed in our home games.

In the end, I think it boils down too "Hey, it's cool that they brought this up in D&D".

Quote from: Spinachcat;768524The one way of roleplaying is the true and proper path, laid down by the righteous as how we should all play, every game, in all ways.

The other way of roleplaying will destroy the hobby and marks you as an enemy of all that is worthy and good.

Choose carefully...

I choose sandwich.

Quote from: Omega;768515Dragon 102, page 8.

The problem with Gary quotes is that they lack the historical context.  Narrative mechanics as we know them today didn't exist when Gary wrote that.  What did exist, were the beginnings of a focus on story, narrativism and acting which manifested in proto Larps which is where the old usenet discussions started.  Asking for an absence of story mechanics is not the same as eliminating most rules for a storytelling session, which is what Gary was really talking about.  Nice try though.

Quote from: Spinachcat;768524The one way of roleplaying is the true and proper path, laid down by the righteous as how we should all play, every game, in all ways.

The other way of roleplaying will destroy the hobby and marks you as an enemy of all that is worthy and good.

Choose carefully...

Or...some people just prefer character-facing mechanics that can be associated to the setting and engaged with as the character where as others seem to have this deep-seated need to deny the truth of their own preferences and deny that mechanics can even have such a distinction...you know, whichever. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Marleycat;768640So in otherwords inspiration points are just fine and NO you aren't your character like some here insist on pain of stupidity, yes? It seems to me FUN is the point not some flexible definition of roleplaying made up by someone not at my table.

Case in point.

Quote from: Raven;768642"Hey, it's cool that they brought this up in D&D".

Yeah, they are good terms.

I've only had one player who spoke exclusively third person because that was how is old group did it.  And after that one session he decided he didn't like the way we were doing it and he went back to just being a wargaming buddy of mine, instead of a player in my games where 1st person is the norm, but not required.  No harm, no foul.

Quote from: Raven;768299On pages 66-67 of the Basic Rules, the author lays out two methods of RP, specifically Descriptive (essentially 3rd person aka "Tordek stomps over to the bar and orders a drink") and Active ( 1st person or in-character, including mannerisms and body language aka "I stomp over to the bar and glare at the innkeeper. 'Gimme another drink, ye daft bastard.'")

I've been involved with discussions about this in the past, and even taken some heat when professing my own personal distaste for the active method (you aren't really roleplaying unless you are speaking in-character!) but I think this is the first time I've seen each method clearly labeled and as such this section stood out to me.

Is this the first time Descriptive and Active have been used to define these two methods of RP, or have I just skipped over every What is Roleplaying? section in every book I've read since 1985?

The jargon aside, what strikes me is the utter exclusion in your post of the phenomenon that actually was identified as role-playing in all I recall reading before 1985!

The newer identification of rp with superficial "thespian" performance -- not with engaging the imagined world-situation from a specifically located perspective -- seems to reflect a shift to the view that the proper object is for a player to tell a story.

To me, it's comparable to defining basketball-playing in a way that regards the basketball as at best optional, and often as an impediment that gets in the way of "real, proper" basketball-playing (which is all about which style of haircut and jewelry one wears, and whether those are matched with tattoos).

Can somebody tell me what the fuck he's talking about?

I'm well aware role-playing existed before 1985. It was just an arbitrary number to close out the post.  Jesus H.

Quote from: soviet;768396I think there is a place for third person roleplaying in terms of skipping over very minor scenes like buying provisions or updating characters on things the players already know about, but I would always want first person roleplaying to form the vast majority of any session. Even minor scenes like buying arrows and redundant exposition can be fun to play out sometimes, you just want to keep it in check so they don't stop you getting on with the actual adventure.

That's my view - as GM, third person is for minor stuff and for skipping over things I don't want to roleplay out, perhaps to get on to something more interesting, or occasionally because I'm feeling burnt out and don't want to put in the effort (as last Monday - wasn't feeling very well). It's highly sub-optimal but it gets the job done. First person roleplay is for the important stuff and is about the most fun I can have in an RPG.

As player, I'm ok if a GM uses third-person like this, but if they're incapable or unwilling ever to roleplay first-person I don't enjoy the game, and I'll leave it when I realise this.

Quote from: Raven;770246Can somebody tell me what the fuck he's talking about?

I'm well aware role-playing existed before 1985. It was just an arbitrary number to close out the post.  Jesus H.

What I'm talking about is that ways of talking about it are what you're calling role-playing, and that's not the thing itself. We can talk about Rommel, or in imitation  of Monty, but that doesn't make Afrika Korps an RPG, any more than amateur theatrics do so for Rail Baron or Acquire.

What made Dungeons & Dragons an RPG was the element of having all and only the options you would have if you were (say) a novice magician in a dark tunnel with a dagger, a rope and half a chicken.

What Mr. Gygax pointed out in the article quoted earlier, is that an excessive concern with "role-playng" in your thespian sense tends to shortchange the game element in RPG. The game is not how you talk after the fact, it's in actually making moves. Whether those are made from an in-the-game-world perspective is what makes the difference that makes an RPG.

No amount of funny voices or elegant narration makes in its own right anything but an entertainment that may or may not happen to be associated with role-playing and/or game.

Quote from: Phillip;770258What made Dungeons & Dragons an RPG was the element of having all and only the options you would have if you were (say) a novice magician in a dark tunnel with a dagger, a rope and half a chicken.

What Mr. Gygax pointed out in the article quoted earlier, is that an excessive concern with "role-playng" in your thespian sense tends to shortchange the game element in RPG. The game is not how you talk after the fact, it's in actually making moves. Whether those are made from an in-the-game-world perspective is what makes the difference that makes an RPG.

No amount of funny voices or elegant narration makes in its own right anything but an entertainment that may or may not happen to be associated with role-playing and/or game.

Not sure this is true.
When you hear about old games from folks like OG they specifically point out that they never made suboptimal choices based on character. Although they may have done based on deliberately ignoring meta-knowledge.

So rather than  having all the options of  a novice magician in a dark tunnel with a dagger, a rope and half a chicken, you have all the options of you pretending to be a novice magician in a dark tunnel with a dagger, a rope and half a chicken.
There was little if any effort to try to think like a novice magician, or like someone with a different mindset.

Estar has refered to that default style of play as RPG as sports. You all have characters in a dungeon and you limit your action to what your characters know about the setting but you don't take actions based on your characters personality. In effect you play yourselves in that situation.

And the thespian element of roleplay isn't a funny voice or an elegant speech that is a very limited view of what thespian means. The thespian element of roleplay is to inhabit the character not just the world. To do things that the character would do not things that "a player that hopes to suceed in getting through the dungeon and maximising their treasure haul" would do.

I don't really know what people mean by thespians in an RPG context.

When playing RPGs I see players make decisions about what their character does using four different decision paradigms.

1) Choose actions that the player believes will maximize character survival and advancement while minimizing character risk.

2) Choose actions that the player believes the character would make (based on character personality, background, culture, etc.) even if those choices may be suboptimal for maximizing character survival and advancement or for telling a better story.

3) Choose actions that the player believes will make for telling a better story even if they may not be what the character would choose and may be suboptimal for maximizing character survival and advancement.

4) Choose actions for the whacky hijinks fun or to see what happens if they pull that lever, drink from that pool, or put horse pee in the Paladin's water skin even if that may be suboptimal for maximizing character survival and advancement or telling a better story.

Most (probably all) players use more than one paradigm depending on situation (how big is the reward if we succeed, how risky is this action, how much does my character care about X, etc.) and on player mood and whim (I've had a tough day and I just want to kill stuff).

Quote from: jibbajibba;770264Not sure this is true.
When you hear about old games from folks like OG they specifically point out that they never made suboptimal choices based on character. Although they may have done based on deliberately ignoring meta-knowledge.

So rather than  having all the options of  a novice magician in a dark tunnel with a dagger, a rope and half a chicken, you have all the options of you pretending to be a novice magician in a dark tunnel with a dagger, a rope and half a chicken.
There was little if any effort to try to think like a novice magician, or like someone with a different mindset.

Estar has refered to that default style of play as RPG as sports. You all have characters in a dungeon and you limit your action to what your characters know about the setting but you don't take actions based on your characters personality. In effect you play yourselves in that situation.

And the thespian element of roleplay isn't a funny voice or an elegant speech that is a very limited view of what thespian means. The thespian element of roleplay is to inhabit the character not just the world. To do things that the character would do not things that "a player that hopes to suceed in getting through the dungeon and maximising their treasure haul" would do.

Not sure what is true? To what is your rumination on what Mornard and friends did pertinent?
 
It is roleplaying regardless of whether my role is a model of Aragorn from Tolkien's novel, or a persona based on envisioning myself as a ranger. I can respect your preference without granting it the status of One True Way. Your opinion of what "Ranger Reid" would or would not do is not by any right binding on me.

If as GM you try to lay down a rule that players must go through motions of stupidy for the sake of dramatic verisimilitude, be prepared for the possibility of losing those who came to play a game. YMMV as to how much they'll put up with, relative to members of the repertory theatre school who will gladly walk backwards into a dark room alone and pretend they've never heard of Monster X that looks like a cute bunny even though you've pulled out that chestnut time and time again.

The absolutely key, distinctive element is that if, for instance, my role is a 19th c. division commander, I do not have a bird's eye view of the whole battlefield, nor do I control such things as every battalion's deployment of companies and every battery's selection of ammunition each minute. On the other hand, neither am I arbitrarily prevented from doing things I actually could do in that position.

I use all three voices. Yes, even second person, especially as GM. I slip into them as it goes, occasionally hitting all three in a dynamic, dialogue heavy scene.

And I think nothing of it as I find it immersive throughout. Certain things, like internal or implicit (or non-corporeal), cannot abide lack of fluidity in voice, IME. For me the point is 'putting you there', and 'show, not tell' has limits with certain abstractions, so I settle for quick awareness there and more description elsewhere.

Quote from: Bren;770272When playing RPGs I see players make decisions about what their character does using four different decision paradigms.

It's even simpler then that.

1. In Character Decision
2. Out of Character Decision

IC could be decided upon based on many different motivations, but those motivations are of the character, not the player.

OOC likewise could be decided upon based on many different motivations, but those motivations are of the player, not the character.