You can call just about any straightforward playing of the game roleplaying in a fundamental sense, if you wish. However, that is almost outright avoiding the point. Those people who appear in commercials are actors, but I can't say I really relate well with many of the things they are portrayed doing. The conversations and actions that take place are so heavily dependent on a framework of trying to sell something, that it can't be taken seriously beyond a certain point. Contrast that with a deeply moving and gritty drama filled with some of the bitter realities of life we don't trot out in everyday conversation, but certainly resonates in us.
I tend to view the actions of those who aren't deliberately considering narrative or character motives as entities apart from themselves as more background or setting, not entirely divorced from the RP from my perspective, but not primary material either. Its as real as instability in the Middle East and fluctuations in world currency markets and just as distant in comparison to our constant need to secure our own needs and maintain the friendships and associations we have. Obviously the capsuleer has a bit more socio-economic mobility and potential political influence than most of us, but the orientation of your own personal "inner circle" being more central to you than the rises and falls of what comes to seem after a while like generic entities out on the periphery of your experience.
So then what you are saying is that you decide on whether or not someone
else is roleplaying based on
your ability to suspend disbelief according to their actions?
Simply put: They're not roleplayers
...this does not mean they're not roleplaying.
They're not IC, they're not being a character, they're not roleplayers by ANY definition of the word. You can sugarcoat it however the hell you want, but they're not playing a role. They're playing a game. There's a major difference there.
Given that the core of the game is that it's a
role-playing game I would suggest your "major difference" is first and foremost not anywhere near as "major" as you imply, and secondly purely semantics based on personal preference and of course, in your words:
I'm a bit of an elitist jerk when it comes to roleplaying
XD
there's some self-evident truths that just can't be avoided
I think the FAQ even has something in it about "self-evident" and "obvious" things, but to paraphrase: Things you think of as "self-evident" aren't.
The character you play isn't you. It's a role, which you 'act'. You create a separate personality and character (sure, base it on yourself if you want to be boring, but it's still a separate personality and character) with which you interact with a universe and other characters that's also separate from the real world.
Except the role
can be you. You may consider it boring, which is fine and dandy, but there is nothing wrong with playing a role of
yourself. This happens all the time. Was John Malkovich not acting in
Being John Malkovich simply because he played himself?
That guy who faffs about playing a game won't think twice talking about the latest sports event somewhere in real life. He'll spend an hour bragging about the cheerleader he got on her back last night. The next week, he'll complain about the chlamydia he got. All separate from the in-game universe. That's not roleplaying. It's being himself, playing a game
I fail to see the problem with any of those things being taken as IC when they say them, in which case again -- still seems a pretty well-played role.
But please, PLEASE stop trying to justify horrible roleplaying by saying "Oh, everything in this game is roleplaying, kinda.". It's simply not true. It's playing a game, or playing a role while playing the game. Those two have similarities and overlap, but they're still extremely distinct and separate things.
I disagree on the basis that this is a semantic argument.
Furthermore I find it absolutely
fascinating that you attempted in the initial post with your examples to discredit the opposing viewpoint by typing everything with improper grammar and spelling for the opposing view and perfect grammar and spelling for the view you were trying to present. There is a direct fallacy involved in that, as there are
numerous roleplayers (including some that are considered focal points) that can't spell or type
to save their own asses and there are absolute multitudes of those that would not call themselves roleplayers whose vocabulary, grammar, and spelling would put everyone and anyone on this forum
to shame.
Bad form.
I think what's more relevant to all this is our interpretation of players who aren't consciously acting. Alliances and mission runners may not give a damn about roleplay, but their actions are no less relevant to the world you decide to immerse yourself in.
People ask me where I'm from and ill say "Pellile". Then they ask if that's in France and I reply its not far. My immersion level is personal it doesn't rely on anyone else to play a part to interact.
...someone understands the point of this little thought experiment, methinks.
Alternatively, given that most people don't immerse themselves in the game universe, and most of those who claim to do at some point or other feel forced to over-rationalize or even ignore game mechanics and the dialogue or even actions of the "non-roleplayers" for the sake of immersion, it can be argued that nobody roleplays in EVE.
All that's achieved by extending the label of "roleplayer" to everyone is that the word becomes useless.
I was with you right up to this point. Then you said this:
Then we have to find new words to describe the kind of players who fit into the implicit operational definition we still retain of the now-defunct term, such as "immersioneer".
...why do we "have to"?
Author
Topic: What is Roleplaying. (Read 13445 times)