Discussion Roleplaying - Literature or a Game

[Aix]

Of course, Roleplaying is both, but how do you look at it?

 

If I'm unclear what I'm asking about, let me start. For me, I rather focus on creating a really good story with everyone meanwhile having fun with it, so I tilt on the literature side. I like a good story with good characters, and most of all, I like crafting a good story, the act of creating something you can be happy about - art. Quality is most important, but certainly, I can still just have fun with any RP as long as it strikes my fancy or suits my mood.

[Kazooie]

I tend to agree with you. While I certainly want people to have fun in an RP, I want there to be a story, and especially good characters, as well.

 

I'm not active in RP's anymore, but I certainly enjoy seeing an RP thrive with a good story, but for me, the characters are always the ones I'm more interested in. If the characters people are playing as bore me, then the RP itself will likely end up losing my interest, no matter how good the story. I guess that's kinda why I quit RP'ing in the first place.

[Blake]

Is the action of creating it in a group not a game?

 

I think trying to differentiate which it is shouldn't be a thing. Yes, it's co-writing a story, each taking on a character(s) to portray in said story, but it's there for both fun and the story. Other than the main plot, even the thread owner can't control it completely. Nor can the roleplayer control the story itself.

 

It's a game in the sense it's a group writing where you are actually "competing" in the story, so to speak. Where you are choosing how to interact with one another, what to build, what to do. It's interactive story creation.. But it's still both a game and literature at the end, and it feels... unnecessary to try and discern which it actually is.

[Thar]

To me, roleplaying can either be both or just a game. If it were just literature, then it'd just be a short story or a novel. The game aspect goes with the tabletop D&D and LARP games, along with all of their affiliates.

 

The main thing I like about roleplaying is the interactivity with the world and its resources. Worldmaking is also pretty fun as well as weapon and spell design and mechanics.

[bury the year]

It's literature to me. I like crafting the story through roleplaying - it's interactive fiction and worldbuilding to me.

[Phantom Roxas]

It's a bit of both. I like Black's idea of it being "competitive" writing, but I think players should approach the roleplay with the idea that they're crafting a story rather than just doing things just because.

[StealthyTyranitar]

I believe it to be literature in game form, much like video games are movies in the same way.

[The Warden]

Well, it depends on the sort of Gamemaster you are, obviously. If you are the sort with a tight rigid control on your creation, it's Literature. Because despite the input of the other players it is still nonetheless the story you intend to pen and you will damn well make sure it follows the railway.

 

Inversely, if you are the free sort with everyone giving their input, no matter how inane or stupid it is, why, you've got a game my friend. You can't follow a story if the story itself can't follow itself, that's blatantly obvious. Simon Says doesn't have a story yet everyone loves playing it.

 

As for a middleground, potentially, but you'd need skilled players in order to do that.

[Kyng]

Well, it depends on the sort of Gamemaster you are, obviously. If you are the sort with a tight rigid control on your creation, it's Literature. Because despite the input of the other players it is still nonetheless the story you intend to pen and you will damn well make sure it follows the railway.
 
Inversely, if you are the free sort with everyone giving their input, no matter how inane or stupid it is, why, you've got a game my friend. You can't follow a story if the story itself can't follow itself, that's blatantly obvious. Simon Says doesn't have a story yet everyone loves playing it.
 
As for a middleground, potentially, but you'd need skilled players in order to do that.

In further elaboration of this point, since this is essentially my answer though missing something crucial: depending on your intent, whether to create and flourish an idea you've seeded into your head, or in turn to entertain, significantly determines as to whether it is a game or, in fact, a piece of literature.

[Aix]

Well, it depends on the sort of Gamemaster you are, obviously. If you are the sort with a tight rigid control on your creation, it's Literature. Because despite the input of the other players it is still nonetheless the story you intend to pen and you will damn well make sure it follows the railway.
 
Inversely, if you are the free sort with everyone giving their input, no matter how inane or stupid it is, why, you've got a game my friend. You can't follow a story if the story itself can't follow itself, that's blatantly obvious. Simon Says doesn't have a story yet everyone loves playing it.
 
As for a middleground, potentially, but you'd need skilled players in order to do that.

In further elaboration of this point, since this is essentially my answer though missing something crucial: depending on your intent, whether to create and flourish an idea you've seeded into your head, or in turn to entertain, significantly determines as to whether it is a game or, in fact, a piece of literature.

Which do you prefer? Roleplaying as more of a game or literature?

[Kōsuke Ueki]

I'm kinda on the fence about this. I have no real preferences in regards to this, but I can definitely say that this is a matter of perspective.

 

I always have the problem with Roleplaying because my way of trying to have fun is basically sucking away the fun of others. I've made terrible RPs in the past. They barely had any consistency and were pretty much all over the place. These days, I have "improved" to an extent, but my nature of making severely overpowered characters just won't go away. Old habits die hard, as I always say.

 

Anyway, I don't really prefer either, since I haven't found my place in the Roleplaying world where I can have fun without hindering the fun of others. I still have a lot to learn, I guess.

[scooterulez]

I take it to be more of a game starting off, but then ending in a very much literary form.

 

RP's are more of a game with a literature beginning. There is the Prologue, with settings, main characters, etc. Then when all is said well and done, it then goes up the hill to the rising climax. I see huge problems with a lot of RP's that I've done is that the story never gets past the Prologue, rarely gets to the beginning of the rising action, let alone the climax. As I said with the game form of the beginning, people leave the RP to early, because they see it as a game. They play for a while, having that "It's a game" mindset, then they get bored and leave before anything really good happens. And what do we have here, a dead RP. It is not to day that it didn't have potential, or that the RP host didn't get the climatic plot points in fast enough, it just didn't have the support it needed to continue to be a great RP. It is like playing an instrument, sure you love the sound of a Guitar, but you just can't pick it up and play "Through The Fire And The Flames" the next day. It takes time and patience.

 

So with all of my, what you would call, "ranting", I see an RP as a Literary game that needs the support of the members to keep it alive. Members needs to give it the time and attention it needs if it wants to get to the end. Once you accepted the call, you see it to the end!

 

That is all.

[Kyng]

Which do you prefer? Roleplaying as more of a game or literature?

Games. I like fun. =D

[LeftIntheDark]

A simple game lasts in short term, a story creates memories. That is how I see it.