Thank you for quoting me. You're making an interesting point, but I have a couple of concerns.
First, in my essai my goal was to focus on what distinguishes the “family” of D&D from RPGs in general.
Logically, “being a GdR” (in short, roleplay) is an essential element of D&D, but it is also an essential element of Trollbabe, of The Pool, of Wanderhome, of Kagematsu, of Little Katy's Tea Party: it's natural, they're role play games.
If this was the only essential element, the D&D “family” would have nothing special and distinctive with respect to the others. Instead, the purpose of my new series of articles is precisely to go after those elements.
Second, your definition of roleplay doesn't entirely convince me.
To start, it's based on a distinction between players and GM that isn't so general: it's fully applicable to D&D but, for example, the last three games I mentioned before are without GM.
Above all, I don't think that roleplay means "the principle by which a player profiles a character and strives to make that character plausible and believable". Indeed, I've practical evidence, even firsthand, that we can play D&D with great satisfaction (and get beautiful stories from it) even without doing this at all.
All that's required is that the player makes decisions for the character and deal with the consequences. This is enough for the game to work just fine. No need to think about believability/consistency with respect to some predefined identity (I'm not saying it's wrong: just not mandatory).
I hope you don't mind me focusing only on criticism: I reiterate that I appreciate most of what you wrote. And thanks for this opportunity to exchange ideas!
Spot on! That is the point: my view doesn’t match with your... that is not a problem, you play with fun in your way just like i do in mine, so everybody is happy with our own view.
You wrote "Indeed, I've practical evidence, even firsthand, that we can play D&D with great satisfaction (and get beautiful stories from it) even without doing this at all.
All that's required is that the player makes decisions for the character and deal with the consequences. This is enough for the game to work just fine. No need to think about believability/consistency with respect to some predefined identity (I'm not saying it's wrong: just not mandatory)."
I never had fun with players acting with no role-play both if i were a player and GM. And by role-play i do not mean real role-playing (i.e. talking and acting as an actor!): i mean the 'immersion' into a character who is not you. I have concerns on the other side of this situation: i cannot figure out how a player can play with no link to his character... missing this aspect, the game is not anymore an RPG, it is a wargame with single characters...
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, it is really interesting!
Thank you for quoting me. You're making an interesting point, but I have a couple of concerns.
First, in my essai my goal was to focus on what distinguishes the “family” of D&D from RPGs in general.
Logically, “being a GdR” (in short, roleplay) is an essential element of D&D, but it is also an essential element of Trollbabe, of The Pool, of Wanderhome, of Kagematsu, of Little Katy's Tea Party: it's natural, they're role play games.
If this was the only essential element, the D&D “family” would have nothing special and distinctive with respect to the others. Instead, the purpose of my new series of articles is precisely to go after those elements.
Second, your definition of roleplay doesn't entirely convince me.
To start, it's based on a distinction between players and GM that isn't so general: it's fully applicable to D&D but, for example, the last three games I mentioned before are without GM.
Above all, I don't think that roleplay means "the principle by which a player profiles a character and strives to make that character plausible and believable". Indeed, I've practical evidence, even firsthand, that we can play D&D with great satisfaction (and get beautiful stories from it) even without doing this at all.
All that's required is that the player makes decisions for the character and deal with the consequences. This is enough for the game to work just fine. No need to think about believability/consistency with respect to some predefined identity (I'm not saying it's wrong: just not mandatory).
I hope you don't mind me focusing only on criticism: I reiterate that I appreciate most of what you wrote. And thanks for this opportunity to exchange ideas!
Spot on! That is the point: my view doesn’t match with your... that is not a problem, you play with fun in your way just like i do in mine, so everybody is happy with our own view.
You wrote "Indeed, I've practical evidence, even firsthand, that we can play D&D with great satisfaction (and get beautiful stories from it) even without doing this at all.
All that's required is that the player makes decisions for the character and deal with the consequences. This is enough for the game to work just fine. No need to think about believability/consistency with respect to some predefined identity (I'm not saying it's wrong: just not mandatory)."
I never had fun with players acting with no role-play both if i were a player and GM. And by role-play i do not mean real role-playing (i.e. talking and acting as an actor!): i mean the 'immersion' into a character who is not you. I have concerns on the other side of this situation: i cannot figure out how a player can play with no link to his character... missing this aspect, the game is not anymore an RPG, it is a wargame with single characters...
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, it is really interesting!