Quote from: Steven Mitchell on August 21, 2023, 04:14:29 PM
Technically, it's true that player agency is the important thing, but in the context of role playing, there is no true player agency without a human referee.  So the distinction collapses.  And people get all wound up about player agency as a buzzword, thinking it is about getting to do whatever they want with no consequences as opposed to the reality of it.

On the softball field, you've got a human referee, but no agency to act outside the constraints of the rules.  On the Monopoly board, you can roleplay being the dog or hat all you want, but the dog can't burn down the house on Baltic avenue to protest the hat's rent, much less get sent to jail for it.  If you had a human referee to the Monopoly game, then maybe you can burn down Baltic avenue, but unless you roleplay as the dog or something else, there's player agency but no "character agency", and it still isn't an RPG.

Besides, it's not just having a human referee.  It's having a human referee who adjudicates player actions and the results for the character.

EXACTLY

Quote from: Theory of Games on August 21, 2023, 03:55:52 PM

Quote from: KindaMeh on August 19, 2023, 03:49:18 AM

As opposed to games more generally, I mean.

Some degree of gamism/rules are gonna be in pretty much any game, I feel. So while necessary I wouldn't call the presence of such category defining.

Likewise, it can't be just that and then narrative, story or the like, because CYOA gamebooks have both that AND the first item mentioned. Heck, even video games have both and can often tell a better prewritten story than a gamemaster can on the fly. Likewise a pure narrative approach would not only lose out to novels, cinema, interactive storytelling like Netflix's Bandersnatch, and the like in appeal, but also likely cease to qualify as a game, losing the G in TTRPG.

But in a TTRPG you can interact with a simulated world and attempt pretty much anything you can think of trying. Which is made possible via the presence of a (usually GM) simulated reality of some sort, even if it typically isn't our own reality being simulated. Simulationism.

Likewise you immerse yourself in a character that can act roughly whatever way within the confines of the game. Basically, you have a lot of roleplaying options that are defined and limited only by the rules and scenarios of the game, as they apply to your character, and by the group's social mores. (By this I don't mean you have to be a method actor to play a TTRPG, though I guess some folks could be and many groups and players may enjoy seeing that. What I mean instead is that a core part to a TTRPG is that you get to play at least one character. And that character can typically try to do or be a wide breadth of things that other gaming mediums wouldn't really be able to handle or account for, hence a big part of the appeal.) Roleplaying.


Am I missing some perspective on all this? Or could it really be in a sense just that simple?

Just roleplay your character. It IS that simple. I'm continually amazed by players who fail at games just because they can't do that.

Roleplaying: act out or perform the part of a person or character.

If you can't do that, just go play video games or something 

I mean, I do actually enjoy roleplaying. I'm not the best at it but I'd at least consider myself middling. Heck, it was part of the original speculative definition given in my pondering on what makes TTRPGs distinct from games in general.

Quote from: Scooter on August 21, 2023, 04:19:15 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on August 21, 2023, 04:14:29 PM
Technically, it's true that player agency is the important thing, but in the context of role playing, there is no true player agency without a human referee.  So the distinction collapses.  And people get all wound up about player agency as a buzzword, thinking it is about getting to do whatever they want with no consequences as opposed to the reality of it.

On the softball field, you've got a human referee, but no agency to act outside the constraints of the rules.  On the Monopoly board, you can roleplay being the dog or hat all you want, but the dog can't burn down the house on Baltic avenue to protest the hat's rent, much less get sent to jail for it.  If you had a human referee to the Monopoly game, then maybe you can burn down Baltic avenue, but unless you roleplay as the dog or something else, there's player agency but no "character agency", and it still isn't an RPG.

Besides, it's not just having a human referee.  It's having a human referee who adjudicates player actions and the results for the character.

EXACTLY

On the one hand, I agree that this is something I didn't properly touch on and was effectively missing. Only people can presently effectively arbitrate and simulate full agency within a fictional world. I think that the human imaginative element should probably be part of the definition, not least given that pen and paper games are perhaps most often played within one or more persons' head(s). As well as possibly to distinguish from if someone ever somehow develops an AI or full dive experience that doesn't rely on that kind of thing.

I don't know if the player and referee not being bound directly by rules is enough, though, even when combined with roleplaying. Is Calvinball a TTRPG if roleplaying is involved? Is giving the candyland referee the ability to make up rules on the fly necessarily gonna make your group of candyland method actors TTRPG players? I feel like it could do that, but not that it necessarily would. I agree there must be players roleplaying their characters, but I also feel it is necessary to have a simulated reality and immediate world for them to act in. As a game, this all will also involve rules that may be as loose or as crazy descriptive as may make sense to the design team, and I acknowledge that TTRP-Gs are also by definition games in nature

But I think going back to what Scooter had said about computer games, the key is that the world will react to just about anything. He would probably say to all your roleplaying, I would likely say to  both player action and the world's own internal actors and factors within the mind of the gm, VisionStorm might say to cause and effect chains. Point being, at that point in order for this to happen one must simulate or emulate or whatever the immediate hypothetical reality in question. One must craft a reality or world at the very least least insofar as it applies to the players, their perceptions in game, and their actions.

So I do indeed feel like roleplaying, at least one human adjudicator and it being a game are necessary parts of the definition, especially after hearing what everyone has said. I would however probably go a step further and say a simulated reality or imaginary world must also exist, and react to basically whatever the characters are allowed to attempt with their agency. Their agency in turn being tied to the idea that they exist within said world, and can do things that make sense to the imaginer(s) of said world with respect to what is there and how it works. World arbitration, simulationism, an imaginary concrete reality,  or some other such term for this.

(That said, I will also admit that definitions are pretty subjective to begin with. And it has been quite cool and interesting to hear other folks definitions for and takes on various related things.)

Quote from: KindaMeh on August 21, 2023, 02:44:46 PM

Quote from: Scooter on August 21, 2023, 02:36:57 PM

Quote from: KindaMeh on August 21, 2023, 02:28:18 PM

Like, there are plenty of computer rpgs where you roleplay a character

No, there aren't.  You RP to a computer screen and an algorithm?  They are computer games.  NOT role playing games.  You push buttons.  The program doesn't do anything if you RP.  And the "NPCs" are RPed either.

I mean, you pick dialogue, perform actions, can get into character, and more. Interacting with NPCs whose dialogue, actions and more, developed by humans are meant to in turn characterize them. To me that's roleplaying, acting within a role or having your character emerge through actions.

But your response kind of connects with what I was thinking earlier, I feel. It sounds like the world doesn't feel living to you, like you are restricted both in agency and the world's simulated responses. To you it sounds like both of those things are an assumed part of Roleplaying. For me I'd probably call them fully simulating an immersive reality.

Thats more storygaming than RPing with a PC game. Storygamers will claim reading a book is really real Role Playing! ad nausium.

With a PC game all you are doing is making a selection. Sure you can go with a personality and stick to it. But only as far as the code allows and you can not deviate from that if you want to advance the story.

Most PC/Console RPGs are really just interactive novels/movies with some RNG combat tossed in along the way.

Quote from: Omega on August 22, 2023, 05:53:58 AM

Quote from: KindaMeh on August 21, 2023, 02:44:46 PM

Quote from: Scooter on August 21, 2023, 02:36:57 PM

Quote from: KindaMeh on August 21, 2023, 02:28:18 PM

Like, there are plenty of computer rpgs where you roleplay a character

No, there aren't.  You RP to a computer screen and an algorithm?  They are computer games.  NOT role playing games.  You push buttons.  The program doesn't do anything if you RP.  And the "NPCs" are RPed either.

I mean, you pick dialogue, perform actions, can get into character, and more. Interacting with NPCs whose dialogue, actions and more, developed by humans are meant to in turn characterize them. To me that's roleplaying, acting within a role or having your character emerge through actions.

But your response kind of connects with what I was thinking earlier, I feel. It sounds like the world doesn't feel living to you, like you are restricted both in agency and the world's simulated responses. To you it sounds like both of those things are an assumed part of Roleplaying. For me I'd probably call them fully simulating an immersive reality.

Thats more storygaming than RPing with a PC game. Storygamers will claim reading a book is really real Role Playing! ad nausium.

With a PC game all you are doing is making a selection. Sure you can go with a personality and stick to it. But only as far as the code allows and you can not deviate from that if you want to advance the story.

Most PC/Console RPGs are really just interactive novels/movies with some RNG combat tossed in along the way.

Yes, one cannot INTERACT (act in such a way as to have an effect on another; act reciprocally.) with a computer NPC because it isn't conscious of your existence and cannot THINK.  Thus RPing has NO effect.  You could say the same about playing a slot machine.  Therefore, computer games are NOT RPG's.  By definition.

Quote from: Scooter on August 22, 2023, 08:36:34 AM
Yes, one cannot INTERACT (act in such a way as to have an effect on another; act reciprocally.) with a computer NPC because it isn't conscious of your existence and cannot THINK.

is that interaction really all there is to roleplaying though? i think at least as much RP is happening inside ones head as it is between the person RPing and another - maybe more depending on the cirsumstances. computer games therefore do fasilitate at least that part of RP, don't they?

Quote from: Klava on August 22, 2023, 09:09:02 AM


is that interaction really all there is to roleplaying though? i think at least as much RP is happening inside ones head as it is between the person RPing and another - maybe more depending on the cirsumstances. computer games therefore do fasilitate at least that part of RP, don't they?

Irrelevant question.  Why? Because if you cannot INTERACT there is NO RPing within the game and therefore it is NOT a ROLE PLAYING GAME.  One can "RP inside ones head" while playing slots but that doesn't make slots a role playing game.

Quote from: Scooter on August 22, 2023, 09:10:56 AM
Irrelevant question.  Why? Because if you cannot INTERACT there is NO RPing within the game and therefore it is NOT a ROLE PLAYING GAME

you repeated the same statement with no additional explanation given at all. "RP must be interactive" - why?

Quote from: Klava on August 22, 2023, 09:18:42 AM

Quote from: Scooter on August 22, 2023, 09:10:56 AM
Irrelevant question.  Why? Because if you cannot INTERACT there is NO RPing within the game and therefore it is NOT a ROLE PLAYING GAME

you repeated the same statement with no additional explanation given at all. "RP must be interactive" - why?

Already explained.  Your deficiency in English language comprehension doesn't mean it hasn't been adequately explained.

Quote from: Scooter on August 22, 2023, 09:21:55 AM

Quote from: Klava on August 22, 2023, 09:18:42 AM

Quote from: Scooter on August 22, 2023, 09:10:56 AM
Irrelevant question.  Why? Because if you cannot INTERACT there is NO RPing within the game and therefore it is NOT a ROLE PLAYING GAME

you repeated the same statement with no additional explanation given at all. "RP must be interactive" - why?

Already explained.  Your deficiency in English language comprehension doesn't mean it hasn't been adequately explained.

orly? so there's no roleplaying without interaction at all because... you said so?

kthxby

Quote from: Klava on August 22, 2023, 09:18:42 AM

Quote from: Scooter on August 22, 2023, 09:10:56 AM
Irrelevant question.  Why? Because if you cannot INTERACT there is NO RPing within the game and therefore it is NOT a ROLE PLAYING GAME

you repeated the same statement with no additional explanation given at all. "RP must be interactive" - why?

You can role play all by yourself if you like, heck you can do it while going to the grocery store. That doesn't make what you are doing an rpg. There are computer based rpg games though. Generally in these games your role playing is done with other players, thus interactive else any other role playing done in the game by yourself or with scripted npcs is no different from what you can do at the grocery store, no game needed.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 22, 2023, 09:29:25 AM
You can role play all by yourself if you like, heck you can do it while going to the grocery store. That doesn't make what you are doing an rpg.

when an acrtor rehearses a role alone - isn't that a kind of role playing? some computer games facilitate similar process imo, and rather well - that's my point.

Quote from: Klava on August 22, 2023, 09:35:24 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 22, 2023, 09:29:25 AM
You can role play all by yourself if you like, heck you can do it while going to the grocery store. That doesn't make what you are doing an rpg.

when an acrtor rehearses a role alone - isn't that a kind of role playing? some computer games facilitate similar process imo, and rather well - that's my point.

Sure an actor rehearsing is role playing, so is the person going to the store but neither are playing an rpg. Role play in many forms is possible without interaction. Its the game part that is missing.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 22, 2023, 09:51:07 AM

Quote from: Klava on August 22, 2023, 09:35:24 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 22, 2023, 09:29:25 AM
You can role play all by yourself if you like, heck you can do it while going to the grocery store. That doesn't make what you are doing an rpg.

when an acrtor rehearses a role alone - isn't that a kind of role playing? some computer games facilitate similar process imo, and rather well - that's my point.

Sure an actor rehearsing is role playing, so is the person going to the store but neither are playing an rpg. Role play in many forms is possible without interaction. Its the game part that is missing.

the game is there providing for environment, context and immersion. it's there in place of the script, decorations, music and other stuff that actor i mentioned may be using while rehearsing. doesn't that count?

Quote from: Scooter on August 22, 2023, 09:21:55 AM

Quote from: Klava on August 22, 2023, 09:18:42 AM

Quote from: Scooter on August 22, 2023, 09:10:56 AM
Irrelevant question.  Why? Because if you cannot INTERACT there is NO RPing within the game and therefore it is NOT a ROLE PLAYING GAME

you repeated the same statement with no additional explanation given at all. "RP must be interactive" - why?

Already explained.  Your deficiency in English language comprehension doesn't mean it hasn't been adequately explained.

Except that it wasn't. And for someone who likes to pretend that they're the smartest guy around you do make a lot of moronic statements. Such as claiming that you can't INTERACT with a computer NPC and then claiming that people who don't understand what you're saying are somehow deficient in their understanding of the English language. When you literally can "INTERACT" with a computer NPC, or even a door handle for that matter, because INTERACTION does not actually require a conscious actor and you can in fact interact with an inanimate object according to the actual definition of the word "Interaction".

Shit, a chemical substance can "interact" with another substance or material. There's NOTHING about the word INTERACTION that necessitates a conscious entity on either side of the engagement. And you don't require a conscious entity to "roleplay" either. The word "roleplay" predates the advent of roleplaying games by freaking decades. And it has a lot of uses beyond the way TTRPG gamers use it. Throwing it around without defining the specific way you're using it, like it's self evident, doesn't explain shit.

You idiots (you and "Theory" of Games) don't know WTF you're talking about. Yet you love to treat people like shit, like they're the retards, when they're not (but there's definitely a retard in these discussions. It just isn't them).