Talk:Role-playing

My opinion thereof

Its matterably that this page requires disambiguation for meaning. I have suggested at least three comments that should be considered non fallacious. Not one time did someone send my reply as if it was ambigious to the subject. I propose that if you can do better; you should write it as yourself. You're not helping someone willing using the title of researcher as anything would be in your gratefulness. Write me ‎Andyjsmith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MetlifeWP (talk • contribs) 23:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I suggest using the category Pseudoscience because it describes subjects that aesthetic and ambigious in meaning. The hope is finding less innuendo and disambiguation of its meaning.--Joseph L. Russell, Jr. 21:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Role playing less obviously has to do with special themes and not ambiguity. Although it is portrayed in Chess pieces I don't as argue with game theory. I would like to add the orginal debate that is age old and twarted by news media. Billie Jean King shouldn't be pared or beaten by Bobby Riggs because there are things that men can do that women can't do. But the controversy lie in things that women can do and man can't right? I prefer not to have women on infantry lines but most would argue this is good for our service men as well. But this is a recycling opinion that will surface in games throughout your and passing histories. Maybe you can advise me of my mistakes. I like what WhiteGhost.ink has to say about the ambiguity. Thanks --Joseph L. Russell, Jr. 21:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

This project page has immediate use because of Generation next. It may, like its following, be historical to most some day.

Notes

Please see Role-playing disambuation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roleplay_(disambiguation) --Joseph L. Russell, Jr. 21:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC) user page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MetlifeWP (talk • contribs)

The Online rp section of the article has a lot of extraneous characters that need to be cleaned up. They may be an attempt by someone to use html codes where they should have used wiki codes. I don't know html, so I'll wait for someone who does to fix the section. The Bearded One 23:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Free Form RP?

O Bearded One: I am familiar with the terms but they are pretty arcane and specific to only a few groups. I added a new graf that condenses the info below into less-dense, more generalized terms by talking just about freeform RPGs. Fairblonde 15:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the following two paragraphs:

Free form Roleplaying is a different aspect to online roleplaying. In a freeform roleplay, the roleplay characters are original creations that inact in a turnbased stle either over forum or chat, using one of three styles. These styles are T1, T2, And T3. T1 is a paragraphical roleplay and many consider it the hub of all freeform, as its players judge the skill of each other by both their play with words, their content, and the quality of their paragraphs in the turnbased system. Those who practice T1 are said to be the gods of the chat, and such things as typing skill, grammar, and fontsize are its culture. Large font and poor grammar, such as the common usage of 'u' and 'r' instead of you and are, if highly frowned upon. Elitests, the largly higher and more skilled players dominate the chats, where as the noobs, or newbies, are forsaken and outcasted. The Mystic Tavern is one of the oldest and most established T1 free-form RPGs still in existence.

T2 is the speed devotion of Freeform, only carried out on chat servers, where a player must type out his or her posts as fast as possible, in a combattive position. These posts consist of attacks and defenses, played out with word limits. 7-10-7 for example, is a layout for 7 words of attack, 10 words to connect, and 7 words for counter. T3 is this same system, save without rules.

Is this common parlance in online RP? I've never heard of these T1, T2, and T3 RP styles before. Can anyone confirm? The Bearded One 06:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been involved in role-playing, stricly online, for about two and a half years now, I believe I've heard those terms once -- and, if I recall correctly, that was only when searching the bowels of Internet for more 'in-depth' information on it. It's definitely not common terminology, at least in the circles I've frequented. It should stay deleted. Antipode 23:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I've heard of all three of the types of role playing. Of course I role play everyday. The definitions of t1, t2 and t3 are all correct. Even though they are not commonly used I hear them every day.

What makes role playing interesting

I read the wikipedia post about Role Playing Games (RPG) but did not find a discussion of what actually makes RPGs interesting, so I thought I would add this post as an initial discussion of the topic. That so many game genres have spawned from the original seeds of Dungeons & Dragons (the first rules set for RPGs that came out in 1976), including P&P alternates (Vampires), MMORPGs (EverQuest), Computer RPGS (Ultima VII), not to mention movies, cartoons, magazines, conventions and other offshoots, there is an obvious fascination with the RPGs that bears some discussion.

Player Interest

For a lot of players role playing is something just slightly more than a game. With games like Monopoly or Chess you play them, win or lose, and then the game is over. With RPGs it is often the case that players do not 'end' the game, but instead carry their character forward through a series of games that can last anywhere from a week to 20 years. I know of some characters in a few worlds that are literally that old, and still 'in play'. What makes this work is the fascination players develop for their alter egos. Another basis of interest, in fact one might say the opposite side of the coin in terms of interest, is the exploration of another 'world'. The GamesMaster (GM) is typically an author of 'other worlds', sometimes very bizar other worlds, sometimes not-so bizar, yet nevertheless, from a science fiction or fantasy aspect, still fascinating. The creativity that a GM brings into the creation of their world is often expressed in terms of the history, politics, and sociology of the world, and often it is these aspects that make the game fun for the player, and the GM.

An important aspect of interest for Players should also be considered: Myself as the Hero. Players enjoy having an alter-ego that is off on wild adventures in other worlds where they can act the part of Hero. This is something most people do not risk in 'the real world' but happily engage in in the 'fantasy world'. For one thing, Adventuring in the 'real world' can get you killed, whereas in most cases playing in a 'fantasy world' will not, even if the character should die in the course of their adventures. This aspect of the fun of role playing probably ranks fairly high. Another aspect of interest is that players enjoy getting together with other players and forming teams that work together to accomplish great deeds in the fantasy worlds they occupy.

GamesMaster Interest

A great deal of time and devotion can (and should) go into the creation of an RPG world. The GM often spends a lot of that time creating maps of the world, histories, and other essential elements of 'background' for the adventures. Many take their lead from Tolkein's 'Lord of the Rings' and 'The Hobbit', which presented the reader (for the first time?) with a completely imaginary world including maps of 'Middle Earth', and extensive history of races and conflicts and the deities that populate the Tolkein Universe. As such many GMs strive to imitate this kind of world creation for their own worlds. In this sense the act of a GM during world creation is not dissimilar to the effort a science fiction or fantasy author might put into the creation of a novel.

Benefits of RPG

Something that is not generally discussed (I plan to publiish a more thorough paper on this topic eventually) is the real world benefits derived from traditional P&P Role Playing. It has to do with the lessons gained related to sportsmanship, planning and organization. Many a GM may snicker to remember what happenned to such and such a party on an adventure where they neglected to plan in advance and therefore forgot to bring along a necessary item with them (something so simple seeming as a length of rope could mean the difference between being able to extricate a character from a hole, or being forced to leave them there - darn). Such lessons are rarely lost on players. The nice thing about RPG lessons are that they can be very useful in the real world too. I often find that the lessons of my D&D experiences have aided me in a variety of ways in the real world, in just those categories: planning, organization, and good sportsmanship. There are other benefits that I may elaborate on further later on, but they include the exercise of imagination, the confidence building aspects of improvisational theatre, and the perspectives that can be gained by Role Playing characters that are not familiar to ones culture (such as playing a Serf in medieval times - ow, they had it rough).

-- GreyFalcon, GM at Large

Article Expansion

I'm thinking of re-working the article a bit, but (partly as I'm new to this business) would appreciate some ideas into my direction. Specifically, what I had in mind was a paragraph or two about the more obvious forms of role-play: stage theatre, mystery dinner theatre, cinema, audio drama, et cetera. Along with, of course, a smattering of information across the article, as this has been a subject I've put a lot of heavy research into since becoming involved with it. (Possibly even reinstating part of the information from the 'Free-Form RP' paragraph that was too cluttery to be practical.) (And, of course, clearing up the 'role-play'/'role play' discrepancy that's still here.) Any objections to the lot? Antipode 23:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds like a great idea. No objections. Be bold. GRuban 02:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• I like it! --InShaneee 21:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello?

is there any problem with the definition ,guys ? I'm seeing our definition deleted. If something's unclear I and my co-workers can clarify for everyone. I've read of our definition being deleted while called "personal rant" by this Irishguy figure... I find it very disrespectful towards people and the researches being made, which sole attempt is to aid understanding for everyone. Needless to say i demand an apology on behalf of me and my colleagues. Gylfi 22:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Cheers

First of all, please sign your posts with four tildes ("~~~~") whenever you post on a talk page. Secondly, unless you can point to somewhere this information has been published, it's considered 'original research', which is not acceptable. Either way, wikipedia is not the place to publish research and/or views and opinions. --InShaneee 22:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll take care of fixing this post, but first let me point out for you that the "accepted" definition is already encumbered with "opinions" you "like" more as they're probably written by your friends or yourself.Gylfi 22:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Please remain civil. The rest of us are simply following established wikipedia policy. And again, make sure that you sign all of your talk page posts. --InShaneee 22:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me for being upset of seeing our own commitment and work trashed, my friend... a person above said "I did a lot of research for this" , and now You say There's no space for research. Well since You and your gang seem to "patrol" this area can You please tell me where can i post our definition so We can go away, ?Gylfi 22:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a scientific journal, so I'm afraid we don't accept original, unpublished research anywhere here. And again, please do not refer to other editors as a 'gang'. --InShaneee 22:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. Are you saying every statement in the definition is an excerpt of other definitions ? and it's in policy that a person trashes one's statement calling it "personal rant" ?

In a word, yes. Please see WP:VERIFY, which states that all information posted on wikipedia must be independantly verifiable. And no, it wasn't right of that user to describe your passage as a rant. --InShaneee 22:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright , then. Thank you for your patience, We'll find a source to backup our definition ,verifying it.. I'll post the link here before re-adding the (modified) definition. We at the anthropology department apologize for ignoring the policy. Thanks again.Gylfi 23:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

New Definition paragraph

Moved to Talk:Role-playing game#New Definition paragraph by Percy Snoodle 13:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Proper spelling: "Roleplaying"

FYI guys, the proper spelling of the word appears to be "roleplaying", not "role-playing" or "role playing". All or almost all the major gaming companies use no hyphen in the word in their official products, and a quick search on the web will reveal many more instances of "roleplaying" compared to "role-playing". Thus it appears that the hyphenated version is an informal variant spelling.

Unless a more automated process is developed, I'll start correcting the spelling on the word in the various roleplaying articles manually as I find them. Of course, if someone has good evidence or reason to use the hyphenated version, please feel free to let me know. The only reason I can see at the moment would be if a specific product happens to officially use the hyphenated version of the word in its product title (eg. The title of a book is literally "Bob's Role-Playing Guide"). Otherwise, the word should be spelled "roleplaying" to be consistent with the apparent industry standard. Dugwiki 16:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Attempted to move the page manually, but I don't think it took properly. Submitted to move request page for administrator assistance. Also note that the "Category:Role-playing" likewise should be spell corrected to "Category:Roleplaying" Dugwiki 17:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, "roleplaying" is not in the dictionary, therefore it is not a word. It should be two hyphenated words. Or, even more correctly: Rôle-playing :) EuroSong ^talk 19:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"Roleplaying" does appear in the dictionary (see [1] as a reference). Also note the use of the word "roleplaying" in the Wizards of the Coast D&D products where they refer to the game officially as the "Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game". Another example is the City of Heroes Roleplaying Game, which uses the word "Roleplaying" on its official product description, name and on the cover of the manuals. So it appears that you are incorrect that "roleplaying" is not a word; many of the actual games I've looked up spell it "roleplaying" (as opposed to just Wiki articles about roleplaying). Dugwiki 20:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Agree (with both the category change and the page change): 1) the trend to re-Germanize (make hyphens less obligatory) English is gaining speed in most publishing houses; 2) this is the actual term used by experts; 3) the hyphenless version is in several of my dictionaries. --Cultural Freedom talk 07:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Agree with both moves Hyphens are rarely used here in my experience. ais523 11:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Quick follow-up - The category move I recommended was turned down because it failed to reach consensus. Some people agreed with renaming the categories, others didn't. Which is fine; a move of that magnitude deserves consensus. In case you're interested in the discussions about "Category:Roleplaying" versus "Category:Role-playing", I summed up and posted a link to the discussion at Category_talk:Role-playing_games#Spelling:_Roleplaying. It's looking like the word usage has evolved over time, with a bunch of games and gaming companies that used to spell the word "role-playing" now spelling it "roleplaying". A partial list of them is in the linked discussions.

Also, thanks to the admins for correcting the "mess" I made when I cut and paste the article previously. Apparently messed up the article history. Sorry about that guys; still a little green at that sort of thing. Anyway, looks like the admins moved the article and fixed the error from the cut-and-paste.

Later guys! Dugwiki 23:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Another way of understanding.

I find that the hardest thing to explain about Roleplaying, or rping as commonly refered to, is what you actually do. After running a few groups myself I've found that most people understand best if its described as interactive story telling. The person who is in control will try to lay down the basic plot but its the other characters who decide for themselves what they are going to do.

An author roleplays out the entire cast for his book.

A phycologist roleplays out what their patients must go through.

A teenager will roleplay out a date to decide what he should or shouldn't do.

Most everyone takes on the role of someone else, or themselves at a different time, to better understand what may happen. Its the purest form of philosophy we can understand and the one most commonly used.

Thank you for taking the time to read this and I hope this adds.

(Hytoshu (talk) 06:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC))

Section for Dedicated roleplaying sites?

Greetings guys.

I just wanted to poke my head in and indicate that I have written a section concerning dedicated roleplaying sites. I plugged in a few links to a few such sites that I know off hand, one of which I am admin to. If any of you feel this is a breach of policy or the article needs something else feel free to edit or let me know and I'll happily make the changes before adding.

Dedicated Roleplaying Sites

While being popular on some social networking sites, Roleplaying also has a large base of sites dedicated entirely to the act. These sites will usually host a forums dedicated in some way to roleplaying. Some of these sites include roleplaying areas as part of their general theme, for example, The Lion King Fan Art Message Board Is a forums dedicated to discussions concerning fan art with themes from Disney's The Lion King, but it also supports a very active section for roleplaying games of many genres. Other sites, however, have a major emphasis placed on roleplaying, examples include but are not limited to The Black Star Storyboards and Roleplayer Guild. In sites such as these, roleplaying is the focus of the forums, with areas for poetry and off-topic discussions placed in as a secondary focus of the site.

Thanks. Neostar2119 (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen online text-based role-playing game? That might be a better place to describe such sites, rather than here on the top-level page. Content-wise, I'd avoid linking to sites as examples unless they have has their own wikipedia entry; otherwise it looks like advertising. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Roleplaying VS Role-playing revisit

Google results show "role-playing" -roleplaying is about 4 times of roleplaying -"role-playing"(backed by other search engines as well, see google fight also). The so called source from up there gives 11 counts for roleplaying, but most are free online dictionaries that anyone can edit and thus unreliable(and search for "role-playing" in the same place got these results as well, and includes more reliable results like Encarta). Also, for actual dictionary entries, the Oxford English dictionary has it spelt as role-play and role-playing, Dictionary.com's 7 results all as role-play or role-playing, Encarta, more professional online dictionaries most give role-playing instead. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 01:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

List compare:

Role-play(ing)(also redirects roleplay to role-play): Oxford, Encarta, American Heritage, Dictionary.com, Yahoo Education(powered by Houghton Mifflin), Webster New word, Word Smyth, Random House Unabridged(infoplease)

Roleplay(ing)(also redirects role-play to roleplay): free dictionary, mnemonic, wordnet, lookwayup, Ultralingua, Rhymezone

Both: Wordnik, Urban(yet role-playing got a lot more results than roleplaying)

In my POV, the list with hyphen is much more reliable. per WP:NAME, Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article.

—Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 01:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

RoleplaySquare

RoleplaySquare is a Roleplaying social network that was developed by roleplayers for roleplayers in March 2011 by the homicide rp orginization. Which is a specific group only located and forever will only stay on RPS aka RoleplaySquare. Roleplay Square's goal is to promote diffrent types of roleplay to a multitude of roleplayers such as syfy, midieval, anime and comic (marvel and dc). Its a social network with a positive enviorment; they do not allow discrimination, hate, etc. within the walls of roleplay and stay away from rp'ers who cause drama. RoleplaySquare, protects roleplay from rp'ers who are trying to destroy it and start drama all those who have joined it agree to this term which is listed within their terms of use policy. It does not promote erotic roleplay in any way. The owners of the website when questioned why they created a website their responce was "We are trying to create a social network that roleplayers can always and forever rp without the hassle limitations such as bad website coding, owner abandonment etc. roleplay should be something that should be enjoyable, and an escape from their OOC lives not another branch of drama for them to be stressed over."Roleplay Square, is associated with most of the high qualifying rp websites and social networks that have the same views about promoting the positive 's about rping to the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roleplayguru (talk • contribs) 23:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge request (make believe)

I am requesting that the article make believe should be merged here. Essentially, after doing some online research, I have come to the conclusion that the concept is not notable, and is instead a more casual term for the concept of role-playing. This is a stronger article at the moment and I think it has more potential for a better article, so I figure merging that article here will be a good solution.--Coin945 (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose merge The stakes are higher for role players in this article. Role play is a proven technique for suicide prevention, crisis intervention, institutional training in a hospital setting, drill, and adult learning. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 20:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. Role-playing in sociology and psychology is a much broader topic, of which make-believe is one small corner. The article doesn't current reflect that, but it should. Cnilep (talk) 05:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose merge Both articles should be better but they are not the same thing, just as acting is not exactly role playing nor is it make believe either. The element of fantasy that may be present in make believe may be entirely absent in role play. The purpose of role playing may be to learn to manage reality better (such as when it is used as part of training) whereas the purpose of make believe is likely to be to escape reality. These differences, among others, need to be reflected in the two articles. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 12:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• The idea that make believe is a very small subset of role-playing would seem to me an argument in favor of merging it with this article as a small section below the others. In any case, this article (now, at least—I am aware this discussion is old, but it is still unresolved) covers topics beyond psychological role-playing. Opposing a merge for the reasons given above makes very little sense, given the current content. 72.200.151.13 (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Role-playing forums

I have again removed a link to a private role-playing forum from the lead. Per WP:EL, we normally don't include links in the body of an article. This site in particular does not provide a unique resource on the subject itself, requires registration, is a discussion form, and is unofficial or a fansite, all types of links that we should avoid. If anyone believes this site might be appropriate for an External links section, let's discuss it here. Woodroar (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)