+- Hydaelyn Role-Players (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18)
+-- Forum: Community (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: RP Discussion (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Defining RP (/showthread.php?tid=74)
Re: Defining RP - Smiling River - 03-22-2010
Quote:I don't think it's a good idea making a separate section for what isn't RP. Then we might as well make a separate section for what isn't godmode or what isn't meta-gaming. I like how the emote phrase is worded personally since a lot of non-RPers have some preconceived notion that any and all emotes equate to RP. It'll help dissolve those beliefs.
I'm just saying, a definition of a word should be a "positive" definition (not sure what the proper word is) instead of describing what said word is not. For example a spoon is a small round object with a longer handle used for eating. A bad definition would be; a spoon has a handle but on the tip it is not a fork.
In this case it seems if the definition was longer, perhaps it could have a paragraph describing certain elements of gameplay which could be mistaken for RP, but since it's only a few sentences that part (IMO) seems a bit awkward.
Also I didn't mean have a separate discussion/vote (by mentioning "section") on what isn't RP, just a side note within this current version on common practices which may be mistaken for RP. I also think it is important, just as you did here with the definition of RP, to mention what isn't godmode or what isn't meta-gaming. Actually I'm surprised that you are giving a "negative" quality (what isn't RP) in the definition above yet from what I understand don't support the idea of providing the same scope to these other discussions. Creating a contrast between an RP session which uses godmode and the same situation which does not, as an example, will give the reader a clear idea of what godmode is and how it's misused practically. This along with the definition (IMO) gives a new RP'er a better understanding of any idea that we try to define.
If I am the only one who sees the current definition this way, I have no problem letting this go for a vote. I've explained my little critique, besides which I have no problems with it. If anything, the members who vote will have read this (hopefully) and can agree or disagree based on the way they vote. As it stands I am not even sure if it's a big enough problem for me to vote no because the rest of the definition is very sound.
Re: Defining RP - Eva - 03-22-2010
I still like Webster's broad and all-encompassing definition. Setting down a hard-and-fast definition about what isn't roleplay is where things are more open to interpretation and I don't think it's really necessary for this little project. A carton of eggs isn't RP. My dish towel isn't RP. I fail to see the relevance. Maybe it's just late or I'm just confused, but I don't think the point is to pin down what we're not associating ourselves with.
Re: Defining RP - Smiling River - 03-22-2010
I think Castiel is saying that the definition should state that certain emotes aren't RP. We agree that this is relevant info to bring up, however disagree on where it should be located. Stating RP isn't an emote such as "X punts Y" is more relevant than stating that RP isn't a carton of eggs.
Re: Defining RP - Verence - 03-22-2010
I've been kind of avoiding this thread until now. Since opinions can vary so much, I thought throwing one more in would only further muddy things, and towards that end I'm still going to withhold my thoughts on the matter. However, I will say this: This thread has hit four pages now, and the debate's still going. I think in this situation, less is more. The more that is said, the more there is to disagree with and argue over shades of meaning.
Anyone who'd ask "What is RP?" is probably not an RPer and would likely be intimidated if they get clubbed over the head with the full array of subtle nuances and shades of grey first thing. All that stuff should probably go into a "How to RP" or "Types of RP/RPers" section. Think of your target audience: Someone who doesn't know what RP is and is curious enough to ask. Don't frighten them off with a textbook. Keep it general, keep it relevant, and keep it brief.
Re: Defining RP - Kylin - 03-22-2010
I'm really not sure what else to do now. Right now, it just seems like a lot of tiny nit-picking over little things and as Verence said, it's only going to get worse as it keeps getting changed. Thus, I'll put up what I have to a vote starting tomorrow. If it doesn't pass, we can essentially just start the discussion over again based on the results.
Re: Defining RP - Kylin - 03-22-2010
Sorry for the double post but I forgot to mention something important. Since I have a feeling this upcoming vote is going to end up being a bit more divisive, you should probably know that it's okay to respond to the poll thread with what you voted and why. Mini campaigns against or for a particular vote is fine so long as it doesn't induce drama. For example, let's say Mason decides to vote no on the definition (not saying you will, but let's just say you do). If he wanted to, he could respond to the thread with why he did and encourage others to do the same so it can be redrafted. Similarly, someone for it can urge others to vote yes because they think it's perfect as is. Of course, more in depth responses than a simple statement like that would be nice but you get the idea. There weren't really any such responses to our first vote suprisingly, aside from changing the format. Just wanted you guys to know that it's okay to do that. If you'd rather just cast a silent vote and be done with it, that's fine of course as well. It would be helpful though to comment on why you vote how you do just in case something doesn't pass and needs reexamined. Then we have a good place to start in round 2.
That all being said, I'll post the poll up tomorrow and run it for 7 days like last time. IF it doesn't pass for whatever reason, a new round 2 thread will be made where the topic can be discussed once again, drawing on comments from the previous discussion and voting results as needed. Someone else will have to lead the discussion if that is the case, since I have to focus on some other RPC stuff to keep us on track (beta is literally right around the corner after all xD).