View Single Post
Old 10-05-2003, 04:14 PM   #1
Delerak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Name: Dan
Location: New York
Posts: 716
Delerak is on a distinguished road
Send a message via ICQ to Delerak Send a message via AIM to Delerak Send a message via MSN to Delerak Send a message via Yahoo to Delerak
I've wanted to discuss this on TMS for a while, and I guess I will start the topic now.

role-play (rlpl)
v. role-·played, role-·play·ing, role-·plays
v. tr.

To assume or represent in a drama; act out: “Participants are encouraged to pass on leads about jobs... and to role-play interview situations with each other” (Hatfield MA Valley Advocate).

v. intr.
To assume or act out a particular role:

Now, we can all agree that roleplaying is a lot like improvisation, and acting. So you have actors like Mel Gibson, Russel Crowe, Brad Pitt, Jack Nicholson, etc. Whom we all know to be wonderful actors. So of course they would be wonderful roleplayers. My main arguement is this though: Do you think it matters how any of those actors act off the set? Since that is completely out of character. Would the director care how they act? After all if they are doing their job and playing out the role the way he wants, what would the problem be? What does her OOC personality have to do with the way she plays her characters. I bring this up because at some roleplaying muds, the adminstration will not let you play certain roles unless you prove yourself to them that you can be trusted. Isn't the fact that you can roleplay enough? With the analogy I gave above I don't think trust should have anything to do with being able to take on a role in a mud and carry it out with fantastic roleplaying abilities. What say you all?

-Delerak
Delerak is offline   Reply With Quote