One of the basic problems with the current (and prior) threads on
roleplaying is nomenclature. We don't have an accurate agreed upon
vocabulary to discuss the area. This is not helped by the fact that
there is considerable disagreement as to what the currently extant
terms actually mean in practice, especially once you get into
subjective perception and other details. The core of the problem
seems to be that a very wide range of activities and internal
definitions are all being globbed together under the term
"roleplaying".
An early apparency is that all the definitions form a spectrum, a
field, with a fairly continuous range of values across the various
dimensions. For instance consensuality is a readily apparent
dimension, which tho it at first blush seems binary, is really a
finely grained scale of the various levels of effect which one
character may cause on another. Other dimensions would seem to
enclude: functional, narrative, drama, and performance (and likely
others). The result is that each individual's internal definition
of roleplaying (what they consider roleplaying for themselves) is
really a set of ranges of values on the various scales, and their
external definition (what they recognise as roleplaying in others)
is another different set of ranges of values across the various
scales (usually a larger range than the internal definition).
That said, it seems that the space is either lumpy, or contains a
few bits which are easily recognised and commonly stated (in various
ways/forms) as basic forms of roleplaying. Much like the names of
colours of the spectrum, these are arbitrary points within the
dimensional range picked out because they seem to fit common human
models/understanding:
1) Functional roleplaying ("Logical consistency/sensical")
2) Narrative development ("The story and the experience")
3) Character development ("Making him live")
4) Roleacting ("I am the dramatic Bubba")
5) Dramatic involvement ("I was involved in drama!")
I'm fairly certain that there's also a sixth form that I've
missed, but its hiding somewhere at the back of my cranium and
refusing to reveal itself currently.
Note that I haven't accounted for levels of consensuality in these
splits. While that scale is commonly defined as critical to
roleplaying types I don't see it as a functional part of the
definition. It changes the flavour of the roleplaying but doesn't
seem to define it. They also all have sub fracts across levels of
matching behaviour expected or required of other players, but I'm
not sure how to account for that. That seems more of a question of
the level of internalisation of the roleplaying activity that a
definitional characteristic of the roleplaying type.
Which of course exposes a basic conundrum:
Do you define roleplaying in terms of external perception of
roleplaying activity or in terms of internal perception of
roleplaying in a given environment?
Part of the problem here is that roleplaying is performance art,
but, unlike most performance art the actor is a prime member of the
audience and may in fact be the only audience member. As such the
internal definition and the external definition can be mutually
contradictory, or the external definition can simply be missing.
This would seem to be another of the basic dimensions and one I find
difficult to quantify. Some roleplaying types, such as functional
roleplaying are explictly externally defined. Conversely, many
expressions of Character development are intensely internally
defined. Further, roleplaying is typically not a solitary activity
but is engaged in for personal enjoyment via the creation of a
shared experience where one's personal roleplaying activity
integrates in mutually pleasurable ways with the personal
(non-)roleplaying activities of the other players (which may be of
different types).
cf the discussion in the second paragraph on internal and external
definitions)
ObNote: Its actually this last characteristic which most clearly
reveals and defines roleplaying as a form of performance art.
--
J C Lawrence
---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
claw at kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev