RPGWatch Forums - View Single Post - Diablo 3 - Why Fallout 1 Could be succesfull Today @ Pixelitis
View Single Post


June 29th, 2012, 11:23
Originally Posted by CountChocula View Post
On the contrary, this is exactly what playing a role is, whether you are performing in the theater, film, or playing a role in a role playing game.
That may be your opinion, but it's not part of the definition of playing a role. It depends on the people involved. Some movie directors take full control and basically dictate exactly what the characters should do. Sure, the actors get to interpret the character within those parameters, but that's hardly the kind of choices you're looking for.

You must consider your character's perspective (again "someone who bashes monsters" is not a character) and make choices, taking actions you think that character would take.
Again, that's logically and semantically wrong.

A role can be extremely simple or extremely complex - or anything in between. Some roles are basically "extras" that involve absolutely nothing except "being there" in a crowd.

A role can be dictated in such a way, that everything the character does is the opposite of what the actor would have wanted to do. Effectively, giving the actor no freedom to act or play the role. But he's still playing a role.

Playing a role is - at the core - an extremely simple concept. It's about pretending to be someone else, or simply acting as if you were someone else. There is absolutely no implicit level of choice that's required for playing a role.

Monster basher is a role, whether you like it or not. Also, in a typical RPG - it involves a lot of roleplaying choices - whether you like those choices or not.

When you are performing as an actor in a film, obviously, you don't rewrite the script and go to a different location, etc. However, acting in a film is still all about your choices, just as playing a role in an RPG.
There is no one way to perform as an actor. Some actors are also the directors and the script writers. Some actors have enough clout to make significant script changes. Then again, there are actors with minimal roles and basically no say in what their character does. They're just placed there based on their physicality or whatever.

Same goes for some games. Some roles are extremely rigid and limited - but they're still roles.

Certainly there are bad films and bad actors and cases where you could say someone is not even acting, just standing in front of a camera and reading lines.
Exactly and they're playing a role.

But when an actor is truly acting, he is taking actions he feels his character would take, making choices he feels his character would choose, saying things he feels his character would say.
You're talking about the QUALITY of acting/roleplaying. There's nothing "truer" about a better quality. It's just different.


You can tell yourself that a monster basher isn't a role for as long as you wish, but it'll never be logically or semantically correct.

But I fully understand that such a role isn't sufficient for you - and that you, personally, have some need to disqualify such a game from the RPG genre - as if it was an honor to be one.

That's on you, though.




Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)