R-O-L-E or R-O-L-L

[quozaxx]

Quick question:

Is it "Role playing" - like playing a role?

or is is "Roll playing" - like rolling dice?

[Doug Limmer]

It's "roleplaying", like playing a role.

Some people use the word "rollplaying" disparagingly for when one is using roleplaying rules, but is actually playing a war/strategy game (and not playing a personality).

[lemming]

Always hated that term. My experience with people using that term to describe their game, usually meant they had one specific way to roleplay and all others were inferior.

[nexus]

Always hated that term. My experience with people using that term to describe their game, usually meant they had one specific way to roleplay and all others were inferior.

That's been my experience too. "Rollplayer" is an insult that means "Play style that's different from my obviously superior one."

[Korvar]

But my style is superior...


:)

[ghost-angel]

Normally, I reserve Rollplayer as a term for the person who shows up to roll dice and count kills. It's not an insult, and they may even have a fully fleshed out character. They just aren't very interested in playing the part, the story is a vessel to get from point a to b and to roll dice and count kills. Long periods of just in game/in character discussion aren't what they are there for. A lot of gaming is just reduced to dice.

Which is fine, really. But it always gives me the impression of running through a table-top computer game.

[Roth]

I'm honestly both. I love to create a character with a fleshed out back ground, all the bells and whistles.

And then I actually like using the bells and whistles as best I can, which often includes rolling dice to use skills in and out of combat.

[ghost-angel]

I'm honestly both. I love to create a character with a fleshed out back ground, all the bells and whistles.

And then I actually like using the bells and whistles as best I can, which often includes rolling dice to use skills in and out of combat.

The best players are both.

I've seen roleplayers use the char sheet as an excuse to NOT roll dice, wanting to remove any chance of failure - especially with Skills.

And I've seen rollplayers who really don't care about the story and just want to kill things and take their stuff. Actively rolling their eyes when the opportunity to say "I hit for X Damage!" isn't immediately.

[Ed Coll]

I call it impromptu ad-lib drama. ;)

Yeah, I'm WAY on the R-O-L-E-playing side. ;)

[Snapdragon]

That's been my experience too. "Rollplayer" is an insult that means "Play style that's different from my obviously superior one."

I'm working on an essay about this very thing; not the roll vs. role but the divisive snarkiness that seems rampant on the web amongst gamers. Considering the hobby as a whole is small and shrinking in a lot of respects, disparaging other people's role playing skills or game choice seems very counterproductive. (For instance, calling other's characters Mary Sues, or using terms like roll player, or saying "Oh that system sucks, the players must be idiots".)

Then again, competitive fandom is illogical as well; instead of one person going, "I love this show, watch it with me," they say, "I love this show way more than you could ever ever ever, and if you're a fan, you're opinion is unworthy for my fandom is the only true fandom. My fan love is purer and you suck. And don't even think about writing fan fiction about my favorite character or I will tear you a new one, you Mary Sue."

It makes me sad, it does.

[NestorDRod]

I'm working on an essay about this very thing; not the roll vs. role but the divisive snarkiness that seems rampant on the web amongst gamers. Considering the hobby as a whole is small and shrinking in a lot of respects, disparaging other people's role playing skills or game choice seems very counterproductive. (For instance, calling other's characters Mary Sues, or using terms like roll player, or saying "Oh that system sucks, the players must be idiots".)

Then again, competitive fandom is illogical as well; instead of one person going, "I love this show, watch it with me," they say, "I love this show way more than you could ever ever ever, and if you're a fan, you're opinion is unworthy for my fandom is the only true fandom. My fan love is purer and you suck. And don't even think about writing fan fiction about my favorite character or I will tear you a new one, you Mary Sue."

It makes me sad, it does.


But it's definitely entertaining to watch, or read. :D

[lemming]

I'm working on an essay about this very thing; not the roll vs. role but the divisive snarkiness that seems rampant on the web amongst gamers.
Oh it existed pre-web as well.

[ghost-angel]

You're having Bad Wrong Fun.
Stop That.

[Snapdragon]

Oh it existed pre-web as well.

Well sure, but on the web it's a least documentable. And oh so very far reaching.

[hfergus]

I roleplay my rollplaying.:winkgrin: Now that that joke is over...
I tend to roleplay just about anything I can. Even in Starfleet Battles, which is a tactical game, I created a legendary captain that had a back story and personality. My fellow players have almost always been roleplayers, but some tended to have only one kind of character (Grim suspicious almost villian who had few, but loyal friends; the lovable rogue who skirted the law - and sometime broke it, the somewhat clueless good hearted hero, etc.) The best do both when needed. And yes, some were combat mavens, but even they had a character that it made sense for.

I never denegrated either roleplayers or rollplayers, as I do both. Some styles of roleplaying do not suit me, but hey, if you like it and it does not hurt anyone (including yourself), go for it.

I roleplay the most heinous villains, in character as GM, a lot. Some of my players wondered about me. "Just acting. Ever hear of it?";) I take it as a compliment, and trhen explain roleplaying other than your favorite styles.

[nexus]

I'm working on an essay about this very thing; not the roll vs. role but the divisive snarkiness that seems rampant on the web amongst gamers. Considering the hobby as a whole is small and shrinking in a lot of respects, disparaging other people's role playing skills or game choice seems very counterproductive. (For instance, calling other's characters Mary Sues, or using terms like roll player, or saying "Oh that system sucks, the players must be idiots".)


Humans are social creatures. We like to associate ourselves with groups, usually allot of interconnected types and levels: Family, country, political party, interest, etc. In groups we like to have a pecking order and often pick some arbitrary measure to establish it and prove who's more closer to the group ideal and thus both due for dominant status along with praise and admiration as a "true believer' and member of whatever group. We will go to great lengths to satisfy these urges, sometimes frightening lengths.

Also as humans we tend to think of ourselves as belonging to (or hope we do) of the greatest group of all: The norm. Of course our favorite band in the best, our tv show is better, our style of play is the One True Way. Anything else is a deviation from our assumed "norm" and so an aberration at best.

The above is a little blunt and slightly tongue in cheek but I think that's part of it. There's also all sorts of issues about personal insecurity, ego identification with a certain product (RPG, sports franchise, etc) and the need to feel bigger but making someone else feel small. Overall not a great part of human nature.

[Ed Coll]

Humans are social creatures. We like to associate ourselves with groups, usually allot of interconnected types and levels: Family, country, political party, interest, etc. In groups we like to have a pecking order and often pick some arbitrary measure to establish it and prove who's more closer to the group ideal and thus both due for dominant status along with praise and admiration as a "true believer' and member of whatever group. We will go to great lengths to satisfy these urges, sometimes frightening lengths.

Also as humans we tend to think of ourselves as belonging to (or hope we do) of the greatest group of all: The norm. Of course our favorite band in the best, our tv show is better, our style of play is the One True Way. Anything else is a deviation from our assumed "norm" and so an aberration at best.

The above is a little blunt and slightly tongue in cheek but I think that's part of it. There's also all sorts of issues about personal insecurity, ego identification with a certain product (RPG, sports franchise, etc) and the need to feel bigger but making someone else feel small. Overall not a great part of human nature.

HA! Everyone knows psychology and sociology is all bunk! Hmph!


Just kidding! :D

[BNakagawa]

Humans are social creatures. We like to associate ourselves with groups, usually allot of interconnected types and levels: Family, country, political party, interest, etc. In groups we like to have a pecking order and often pick some arbitrary measure to establish it and prove who's more closer to the group ideal and thus both due for dominant status along with praise and admiration as a "true believer' and member of whatever group. We will go to great lengths to satisfy these urges, sometimes frightening lengths.

Also as humans we tend to think of ourselves as belonging to (or hope we do) of the greatest group of all: The norm. Of course our favorite band in the best, our tv show is better, our style of play is the One True Way. Anything else is a deviation from our assumed "norm" and so an aberration at best.

The above is a little blunt and slightly tongue in cheek but I think that's part of it. There's also all sorts of issues about personal insecurity, ego identification with a certain product (RPG, sports franchise, etc) and the need to feel bigger but making someone else feel small. Overall not a great part of human nature.

More importantly, when a group or subculture perceives itself as small and besieged, the members will draw closer to one another and disregard differences and sources of friction.

On the internet, with members only hangouts, search engines to find other fringe groups and fanatics and the ability to shut out the mainstream at will, it is easy to perceive your group as large and vibrant, which flips a psychological switch to a setting that allows people to start forming conflicting factions within a fandom, following or subculture.

Oh, and your favorite band sucks.

[lapsedgamer]

I'm working on an essay about this very thing; not the roll vs. role but the divisive snarkiness that seems rampant on the web amongst gamers. Considering the hobby as a whole is small and shrinking in a lot of respects, disparaging other people's role playing skills or game choice seems very counterproductive. (For instance, calling other's characters Mary Sues, or using terms like roll player, or saying "Oh that system sucks, the players must be idiots".)

Then again, competitive fandom is illogical as well; instead of one person going, "I love this show, watch it with me," they say, "I love this show way more than you could ever ever ever, and if you're a fan, you're opinion is unworthy for my fandom is the only true fandom. My fan love is purer and you suck. And don't even think about writing fan fiction about my favorite character or I will tear you a new one, you Mary Sue."

It makes me sad, it does.

All RPG characters are by definition a little Mary Sue. That's the point, isn't it? Wish fulfillment? I would much rather play a game with somone's Mary Sue creation than have to pay money to read a novel about her. Keep the bad writing and unbeatable protagonists at the game table where it belongs.

The system doesn't always mattter to me unless it's D&D or some other level/class nonsense. I try for 55% roll/45% role. I like thinking through the tactical encounters, but I also get into writing characters and doing ongoing storylines, especially with other people who like to do the same thing. I hate kill them and take their stuff. Hate it.

[bubba smith]

I call it impromptu ad-lib drama. ;)

Yeah, I'm WAY on the R-O-L-E-playing side. ;)
as am i

[nexus]

Some of these terms had genuine meanings at one point but these are their effective connotations now, IMO:

Mary Sue: Any character that is more attractive, successful, skilled or fortunate than the speaker feels they should be.

Power Gamer: Anyone better at optimization/character design than the speaker.

Rollplayer: Someone who favors the mechanical aspects of play more than the speaker does.

Drama Queen: Someone that favors the improv theater aspects of gaming more than the speaker.

[nexus]

More importantly, when a group or subculture perceives itself as small and besieged, the members will draw closer to one another and disregard differences and sources of friction.

On the internet, with members only hangouts, search engines to find other fringe groups and fanatics and the ability to shut out the mainstream at will, it is easy to perceive your group as large and vibrant, which flips a psychological switch to a setting that allows people to start forming conflicting factions within a fandom, following or subculture.


I don't know if I would have phrased it "more importantly" but that is an aspect of it. Though even within groups that feel persecuted there is jockeying for position and status as well. Many of the labels in gaming came about fairly early back when it was a "persecuted" interest spawned in part from people trying to divorce them selves from the other "Badwrongfun" types of gamers that were giving the hobby a bad name. Everyone likes to have someone to look down on, an "Other" to blame even if they're arguably into the same type of thing. To use a personal example, there is an undercurrent of prejudice among blacks based on how dark their skin is, strange as that might sound.

In part I blame White wolf for the "Rollplaying vs Role playing" thing but that's not entirely fair. They were probably capitalizing on the something that was already there and did so very well. But WWGS attitude did help to perpetuate it, IMO.

[Hermit]

Power Gamer: Anyone better at optimization/character design than the speaker.


Huh, a lot of power gamers on these boards....
:sneaky:

[Kal'El Wayne]

Both, please.

After all, I may love 'role'playing (being a writer and all does help a bunch), but I can also enjoy 'roll'playing (especially when I get writer's block). In particular, no character of mine has ever failed to join a party, even after being introduced to an existing party in midgame. Once, in Shadowrun, I was playing a healer/pacifist dwarf shaman. Despite the fact that he had no reason to particularly like the PC who I met first (who would introduce me to the rest of the party) and even though the character was a gay male, and was therefore completely uninterested in the attractive female elf, he still started to follow her around like a lost puppy/bodyguard. To explain it away, one of my contacts that I hadn't defined yet suddenly became a kid-sister who was an elf and looked very similar to the PC, right down to the same model of cyber-arm.

[Vulcan]

I agree. Both R-O-L-E and R-O-L-L have their places in the game.

If you are a dedicated ROLEplayer and sacrifice all to concept, it can be easy to make a completely (or mostly) ineffective character whose only role in the group is to be the plot hook for the game.

If you are a dedicated ROLLplayer with no time for charcter interaction, you often end up being an obstacle for the group, not an asset. After all, even Belkar (a combat GOD who'se evil is measured in kiloNatzis) shows some loyalty for the rest of the OoTS (who are mostly GOOD).

A middle ground is called for. That gives the best group dynamics, and for most RPG'ers, the most enjoyment.