[MUD-Dev] Re: Re[2]: "Advanced" use of virtual worlds?

[rayzam]

From: "Travis Casey" <efindel at earthlink.net>
> On Thursday 31 January 2002 12:19, rayzam wrote:
>> From: "Travis Casey" <efindel at earthlink.net>

>>> Now, I agree that roleplayers are not "more advanced" -- they're
>>> just playing the game in a different way.  However, I don't see
>>> how roleplaying, in and of itself, denies someone any
>>> interaction with other people.

>> Travis isn't the only or first one to say this, that roleplayers
>> are not more advanced. That they play the game in a different
>> way.

>>   But:

>>     You can roleplay and be a socializer.
>>     You can roleplay and be an explorer.
>>     You can roleplay and be an achiever.
>>     You can roleplay and be a killer.

>> Of course, you can be any of those 4 without roleplaying. Now,
>> I'd say offhand that being a socializer is playing the game
>> differently than a killer. But either could also be a roleplayer:
>> socializing about in-game events, or limiting your targets as a
>> killer (like killing Good Players, or Evil Players or Elves,
>> etc).

>> In essence, you cannot roleplay without being one of the classic
>> 4,

> Not sure that I agree with this.  What if you roleplay an
> unambitious bum who doesn't like to talk to people?  You're not
> socializing, not exploring, not trying to achieve anything, and
> not trying to compete with or kill anyone.

But then you're not playing. I hate to bring up chess, after the
other discussions about it. It sounds like being in a chess-match
with no time limits for moves, and deciding to never make your first
move...

> (Note that I'm not saying that I think many people would *want* to
> roleplay that -- just that it's something that could be
> roleplayed, and wouldn't fit into any of those four categories.)

There was an earlier thread on: if you roleplay in the woods and
noone is around to see, is it roleplaying. I'm not sure how I feel
on this one either, to be honest.

>> but you can be any of the classic 4 without roleplaying. So I
>> wouldn't call it playing differently. I'd call it playing with
>> more or less added [a killer limiting themselves because of RP
>> might be considered 'less' versus an explorer roleplaying that
>> may be 'more'].

> Not sure that I understand the distinction you're making -- how is
> "playing with more or less added" not "playing differently"?

Well, in the discussion of whether roleplayers were advanced gamers,
one side of the argument has been, no, that they're just playing
differently.  That some people play the game and some people
roleplay the game. That roleplayers aren't playing like the rest. I
think they are playing like the rest, in the sense of what it means
to play the game (as delineated by the 4 types of players). That
this issue was being lost or forgotten in the attempts to segregate
roleplayers from everyone else. That's all.

> I wasn't talking about goals, I was talking more about means -- a
> roleplayer makes up a character and plays that character, where a
> non-roleplayer uses a character as a game piece or an extension of
> their self.  These are different ways of playing the game, even if
> the ultimate goal is the same.

I suppose it's just a matter of semantics. A roleplayer isn't just
roleplaying in a void, they should still fit in one of the 4
types. I don't consider that playing different. I consider being a
socializer versus an explorer, playing differently.

rayzam
www.travellingbard.com



_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev