THE RP THEORY! (pleas read)

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by expertRPguy (4 posts) -
Hello! There are 2 types of roleplaying and I would like to be the first one to establish the difference and tell you why one is bad and other is good. I decided to invent these 2 names: 1. OBSTRUCTIONIST ROLEPLAYING 2. NON-OBSTRUCTIONIST ROLEPLAYING Most people think the 2nd option is not roleplaying and that 1st option is only viable but it is the other way around. The roleplaying means in my view that you are your character. You talk as your character. You don't talk about real life and your new car, if you are playing world of warcraft. You are a dwarf you can make up a story for your character. Now here is the distinction: The Obstructionist roleplaying is when a person says I have a magical shield and you can't attack me and then blames you for not roleplaying if you attack him. The non-obstructionist roleplaying means the roleplay doesn't interfere with gameplay. If your goal is to kill an enemy. You don't pretend he has some magical shield that you can't break. You only roleplaying saying he has some magical shield you can't break if he REALLY DOES, but if he does not you attack him. Understand? You can still roleplay by killing enemy and then talking in-character and saying how you killed him and say something really medieval but never hesitate to kill enemy for sakes of roleplay. Understand? The roleplaying should never interfere with gameplay. The rule I just made up and I hope it becomes famous and everyone abides by it is >>> "ROLEPLAY FOLLOWS GAMEPLAY, GAMEPLAY DOES NOT FOLLOW ROLEPLAY" <<< Thank you for taking the time to read this.
#2 Posted by The_Last_Paladi (18 posts) -

Um, okay? I can see how your theory might be a factor in PnP RPG, Live Action RPG, and to an extent, MMORPG, but I don't see these as a rule of thumb for PC and console RPGs.