Aller au contenu

Photo

Roleplaying with a Fully Voiced Avatar


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
130 réponses à ce sujet

#26
Nightwriter

Nightwriter
  • Members
  • 9 800 messages

Hatchetman77 wrote...

I always thought the game should have tracked if your character was pro mage or pro templar on top of good/silly/bad.

Except, even as a mage, I remained neutral about the templar/mage issue until the very end of the game, when my hand was forced. Would your idea not inhibit my ability to roleplay a conflicted Hawke who sees fault on both sides of the issue and therefore is not totally pro-mage or totally pro-templar?

I like your idea about tracking atheism vs faith in the Maker, but again, what about religiously neutral or conflicted Hawkes?

The point is that there are an infinite amount of desirable roleplaying variables and combinations, but the game can't allow you to roleplay all of them.

#27
elearon1

elearon1
  • Members
  • 1 769 messages

BobSmith101 wrote...
Then you are not roleplaying, you are simply directing how you want the story to go.


It's called improvisational roleplaying - I don't need a script to decide my character is going to say something to the effect of X, I know the settup of the scene, the attitude I want to respond in and an idea of what I'm going to say ... what comes out is a combination of everything which has come before and the moment at hand.  Hell, this is more faithful to the idea of PnP roleplaying than the other option, because you don't get a script to read from in those either.

Indeed, reading a Script and then saying those exact lines isn't remotely role playing, because you are reading a Script; and as such the story can't carry you anywhere you aren't explicitely giving it permission to go.  

People don't go into every conversation in real life knowing exactly what they are going to say when they open their mouths - generally they have an idea of what they want to convey and form the statement or argument as they pursue that idea.  And quite often, in real life, things don't always come out the way we intended them to either. (If I choose the aggressive or angrier response in a dialog, I might say something I don't mean because I'm angry; if I choose the sarcastic response I might bungle an attempt at being funny and find it inappropriate ... these things really do happen)

So, no, having a voiced protagonist doesn't limi my roleplaying at all - because I can still get into the head of my character, still appraoch each conversation or decision with intent, still apply internal dialogues, thoughts and inner conflicts my character goes through before choosing to Say X instead of Y; or do N instead of Z.

I decide WHY my character does things, IF my character takes a mission, IF he ever bothers to do it, WHY he chooses to support one faction over another; WHO he trusts, and WHY he trusts them; and all of this colors how I perceive the story.  Does the game take your hand and do All of this for you?  Of course not, nor would I want a game that took that liscence away from me.

#28
AkiKishi

AkiKishi
  • Members
  • 10 898 messages

elearon1 wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...
Then you are not roleplaying, you are simply directing how you want the story to go.


It's called improvisational roleplaying - I don't need a script to decide my character is going to say something to the effect of X, I know the settup of the scene, the attitude I want to respond in and an idea of what I'm going to say ... what comes out is a combination of everything which has come before and the moment at hand.  Hell, this is more faithful to the idea of PnP roleplaying than the other option, because you don't get a script to read from in those either.

Indeed, reading a Script and then saying those exact lines isn't remotely role playing, because you are reading a Script; and as such the story can't carry you anywhere you aren't explicitely giving it permission to go.  

People don't go into every conversation in real life knowing exactly what they are going to say when they open their mouths - generally they have an idea of what they want to convey and form the statement or argument as they pursue that idea.  And quite often, in real life, things don't always come out the way we intended them to either. (If I choose the aggressive or angrier response in a dialog, I might say something I don't mean because I'm angry; if I choose the sarcastic response I might bungle an attempt at being funny and find it inappropriate ... these things really do happen)

So, no, having a voiced protagonist doesn't limi my roleplaying at all - because I can still get into the head of my character, still appraoch each conversation or decision with intent, still apply internal dialogues, thoughts and inner conflicts my character goes through before choosing to Say X instead of Y; or do N instead of Z.

I decide WHY my character does things, IF my character takes a mission, IF he ever bothers to do it, WHY he chooses to support one faction over another; WHO he trusts, and WHY he trusts them; and all of this colors how I perceive the story.  Does the game take your hand and do All of this for you?  Of course not, nor would I want a game that took that liscence away from me.


Yep your directing the character not roleplaying the character.

#29
elearon1

elearon1
  • Members
  • 1 769 messages

Nightwriter wrote...
I like your idea about tracking atheism vs faith in the Maker, but again, what about religiously neutral or conflicted Hawkes?

The point is that there are an infinite amount of desirable roleplaying variables and combinations, but the game can't allow you to roleplay all of them.


Which is what I've been trying to convey to some people.  This is the stuff YOU, as a roleplayer, need to decide for yourself and internalize while playing your character.  Despite the fact that it isn't spelled out for me in the script, I can still have my Hawke suffer uncertainty in her faith, or make hard choices when it comes time to support the mages or templars.  

When Bethany left me in my second playthrough, my character lost what very personal reasons she had to support the mages, and without Bethany around to remind her what was at stake, she started opening her eyes more and more to just how much suffering the Apostates and escaped mages of Kirkwall were responsible for ... and she really started asking herself if the Templars didn't have it right.  My character changed her world view over the course of two Acts - not because the game told me I had to; not because it was scripted and I had no choice - because I felt that in Roleplaying my character, this was the course to take.

A good crpg doesn't do all your roleplaying for you, but gives you the tools to shape your character with and the world to express that character through.

#30
simonc4175

simonc4175
  • Members
  • 118 messages

BobSmith101 wrote...

You can't roleplay with the paraphrase system. Not knowing what is going to come out of the characters mouth makes it impossible that you are the character. It makes you more of a director, you direct what you want and the actor takes care of it.


You knew what "The Warden" was going to say as 100% of the time it was at the bottom of the screen next to 1,2 and 3 etc.

In both games you directed a character but in one of the games the PC actually has a personality.

#31
elearon1

elearon1
  • Members
  • 1 769 messages

BobSmith101 wrote...
Yep your directing the character not roleplaying the character.


Waiting for another, better argument here.  All I can say - after all my other examples - is that you obviously have a very narrow definition of roleplaying. (I'm not going to roll out my resume here again to prove just how extensive my own expertise in the field is - it becomes tedious and the people who refuse to budge just ignore it anyway)

Actually, I suspect at this point you're just being obstinate and naysaying every argument ... because if you'd actually read and thought about my examples, you'd have seen the other side of the argument.

#32
Nightwriter

Nightwriter
  • Members
  • 9 800 messages

elearon1 wrote...

Which is what I've been trying to convey to some people.  This is the stuff YOU, as a roleplayer, need to decide for yourself and internalize while playing your character.  Despite the fact that it isn't spelled out for me in the script, I can still have my Hawke suffer uncertainty in her faith, or make hard choices when it comes time to support the mages or templars.  

When Bethany left me in my second playthrough, my character lost what very personal reasons she had to support the mages, and without Bethany around to remind her what was at stake, she started opening her eyes more and more to just how much suffering the Apostates and escaped mages of Kirkwall were responsible for ... and she really started asking herself if the Templars didn't have it right.  My character changed her world view over the course of two Acts - not because the game told me I had to; not because it was scripted and I had no choice - because I felt that in Roleplaying my character, this was the course to take.

A good crpg doesn't do all your roleplaying for you, but gives you the tools to shape your character with and the world to express that character through.

So in what way does the game not allow you to roleplay a Hawke who had a crisis of philosophical perspective and switched sides after Bethany left?

Like you said, the game will never be able to allow you to express why you switched sides, but it will allow you to switch sides. Help mages in Act 1, don't help mages in Act 2.

#33
AkiKishi

AkiKishi
  • Members
  • 10 898 messages

simonc4175 wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

You can't roleplay with the paraphrase system. Not knowing what is going to come out of the characters mouth makes it impossible that you are the character. It makes you more of a director, you direct what you want and the actor takes care of it.


You knew what "The Warden" was going to say as 100% of the time it was at the bottom of the screen next to 1,2 and 3 etc.

In both games you directed a character but in one of the games the PC actually has a personality.


You know when a director says "Give me Anger" or "Give me suprise" ? Same difference. You are directing Hawke to express something in one of three tones. You have no idea what that will be until after it happens.

In DA you are being presented with a multiple choice script. The "goal" if you want to call it that. Pick the choice that best fits the personality of the character you are playing.

The actor is the character, the director is not.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 14 avril 2011 - 10:27 .


#34
elearon1

elearon1
  • Members
  • 1 769 messages

Nightwriter wrote...
So in what way does the game not allow you to roleplay a Hawke who had a crisis of philosophical perspective and switched sides after Bethany left?

Like you said, the game will never be able to allow you to express why you switched sides, but it will allow you to switch sides. Help mages in Act 1, don't help mages in Act 2.


Never said it doesn't, we are agreeing here.  The game gives you the tools to reflect this decision in game, but it is up to the player to roleplay the Why of the change and the Psychological Process of that change.  This is where roleplaying actually comes into the medium - without the addition of that personal human element a crpg is always just going to be a game where you push a piece around a board.

#35
elearon1

elearon1
  • Members
  • 1 769 messages

BobSmith101 wrote...
You know when a director says "Give me Anger" or "Give me suprise" ? Same difference. You are directing Hawke to express something in one of three tones. You have no idea what that will be until after it happens.


See, this here is simply perception.  I never felt as though I was "telling" Hawke to do anything, I was playing Hawke and when she was asked to make a decision I chose what felt best for the character I was playing.

The only time I ever "told" Hawke to do anything was during combat, and then I always switched back to her before I unpaused so I'd see the fight unravel from Hawke's perspective.  The only way I could have been more Hawke is if I'd been playing in first person. (which I don't typically enjoy doing in games ... even when it is an option ... I want to see those facial models I spent all that time perfecting)

#36
huwie

huwie
  • Members
  • 130 messages
I really liked the (female) VA in DA2. I was worried that I wouldn't but I did. And it deepened the impact of the game.

However, I'm aware that the VA didn't work for everyone. Similarly, the ME2 (female) VA didn't work for me. No biggie, it was a freebie and I'm glad to have tried it, but I wouldn't want to spend an entire game listening to that voice.

The fact that one voice doesn't please everyone is implicitly acknowledged in previous Bioware RPGs, which offer a choice of widely-differing voice sets. In an ideal world, budget would be unlimited and we could have multiple full-voice sets to choose from. Lacking that, I'd almost rather go back to a wide choice of partially-voiced characters, rather than possibly facing a choice between a voice that doesn't work for me, or complete silence.

I suppose a compromise would be to have one fully-voiced set and multiple old-style "incidental dialogue" sets, as a fall-back for those who wish to turn off the full VA.

#37
AkiKishi

AkiKishi
  • Members
  • 10 898 messages

elearon1 wrote...

See, this here is simply perception.  I never felt as though I was "telling" Hawke to do anything, I was playing Hawke and when she was asked to make a decision I chose what felt best for the character I was playing.

The only time I ever "told" Hawke to do anything was during combat, and then I always switched back to her before I unpaused so I'd see the fight unravel from Hawke's perspective.  The only way I could have been more Hawke is if I'd been playing in first person. (which I don't typically enjoy doing in games ... even when it is an option ... I want to see those facial models I spent all that time perfecting)



You say you played PnP right? This is DA2 PnP style.

Player "I'm going to be sarcastic" 
DM "Speaks sarcastic line ".
Player "I'm going to be Diplomatic" 
DM "Speaks diplomatic line"

The player has no idea what the line will be till the DM speaks. This would only ever work if you played a pre-set character.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 14 avril 2011 - 10:52 .


#38
simonc4175

simonc4175
  • Members
  • 118 messages

BobSmith101 wrote...

You know when a director says "Give me Anger" or "Give me suprise" ? Same difference. You are directing Hawke to express something in one of three tones. You have no idea what that will be until after it happens.

In DA you are being presented with a multiple choice script. The "goal" if you want to call it that. Pick the choice that best fits the personality of the character you are playing.

The actor is the character, the director is not.


In DA:O "The Warden" didn't have any type of emotional responce to what was happening around him.  With DA2 Hawkes responces show that he/she takes it seriously, makes light of situation or is angered by it.

"The Warden" didn't give the character any personality unless you made it up yourself,  Hawke by comparion has more personality and makes feel part of the story where The Warden made me feel more of an observer.

#39
AkiKishi

AkiKishi
  • Members
  • 10 898 messages

simonc4175 wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

You know when a director says "Give me Anger" or "Give me suprise" ? Same difference. You are directing Hawke to express something in one of three tones. You have no idea what that will be until after it happens.

In DA you are being presented with a multiple choice script. The "goal" if you want to call it that. Pick the choice that best fits the personality of the character you are playing.

The actor is the character, the director is not.


In DA:O "The Warden" didn't have any type of emotional responce to what was happening around him.  With DA2 Hawkes responces show that he/she takes it seriously, makes light of situation or is angered by it.

"The Warden" didn't give the character any personality unless you made it up yourself,  Hawke by comparion has more personality and makes feel part of the story where The Warden made me feel more of an observer.


Bingo, that's roleplaying 101.

The only time it was really an issue is in cutscenes. That's why I like the idea of part voiced games like a lot of JRPGs do.

#40
elearon1

elearon1
  • Members
  • 1 769 messages

BobSmith101 wrote...
You say you played PnP right? This is DA2 PnP style.

Player "I'm going to be sarcastic" 
DM "Speaks sarcastic line ".
Player "I'm going to be Diplomatic" 
DM "Speaks diplomatic line"

The player has no idea what the line will be till the DM speaks. This would only ever work if you played a pre-set character.


This happens in PnP games all the time.  The player says, "I use my silver tongue and quick wit to make the guy look like a bufoon; I have skills in Etiquette and Seduction to help me with that."

GM: What do you say?

Player: "As much as I wish I had an 18 charisma and was actually a 6th level Bard, I'm not; I'm limited my my 'real life' stats"

GM: Fair enough, as you wander over to the baron's son you comment on how bad the weather is, and thus how wise it was he not risk damaging his good clothes by wearing them to the ball.  You also catch the eye of his date and, with a seductive smile, tell her how sorry you are you hadn't know about their plight in advance - since surely you would have been generous enough to part with the few extra coins it would have cost to hire an unbrella.  The young noble tries to sputter an indignant retort, but their damp clothing makes it difficult.

Player: Very nice, I let him chew on that and, flashing his date another smile, swagger off to check on the drinks.


Beyond that, you ARE playing a somewhat preset character in DA2, with professional writers coming up with your clever dialog, inspired by what they know of the character. (which is exactly the same thing that happens when you have a dialogue script in front of you)  In this case the writers are the GM stepping in because you can't come up with the clever dialogue yourself. (because the limitations of a video game prevent this from being viable)

#41
elearon1

elearon1
  • Members
  • 1 769 messages

BobSmith101 wrote...
Bingo, that's roleplaying 101.


Right, and like with any 100 level course, you're starting out with the basic, skin and bones.  But to continue the analogy, a 200 or 300, etc., level course would take that framework and show you new ways to use it; new things you can do with it.

I went through a time where my players constantly asked me to make their characters for them, because I knew the setting more than they ever could and as such had the ability to craft them backstories with real connections to the world, politics, people, etc.  (It also allowed me to do things the players didn't have narative authority to do on their own, like making one character an Arch Villain who'd helped the king murder his father and usurp his throne, only to be betrayed and imprissoned for 25 years in a wretched and near forgotten tower overseen by a disintegrating order of once holy knights)  Once I crafted these characters and explained their origins, the players went on to make those characters their own by picking up from that point.  The system worked quite well and players got to be introduced to character types they might never have thought of creating themselves.

#42
AkiKishi

AkiKishi
  • Members
  • 10 898 messages

elearon1 wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...
Bingo, that's roleplaying 101.


Right, and like with any 100 level course, you're starting out with the basic, skin and bones.  But to continue the analogy, a 200 or 300, etc., level course would take that framework and show you new ways to use it; new things you can do with it.

I went through a time where my players constantly asked me to make their characters for them, because I knew the setting more than they ever could and as such had the ability to craft them backstories with real connections to the world, politics, people, etc.  (It also allowed me to do things the players didn't have narative authority to do on their own, like making one character an Arch Villain who'd helped the king murder his father and usurp his throne, only to be betrayed and imprissoned for 25 years in a wretched and near forgotten tower overseen by a disintegrating order of once holy knights)  Once I crafted these characters and explained their origins, the players went on to make those characters their own by picking up from that point.  The system worked quite well and players got to be introduced to character types they might never have thought of creating themselves.



Did they also ask you to play the characters for them? Because they may as well have had done.

#43
elearon1

elearon1
  • Members
  • 1 769 messages

BobSmith101 wrote...
Did they also ask you to play the characters for them? Because they may as well have had done.


And again we bounce up against the wall of your limited understanding of roleplaying.  I actually feel sorry for you, I do, because you've evidently been limited in your experience to mediocre GMs, gaming theory, and quite possibly elementary rp.  But, running into people who have convinced themselves there is only 1 right way to do anything is hardly unique; you find people refusing to open themselves to broader experience in just about every form of thought and expression.  Saddly, you seem like you might be an intelligent fellow, so I hope you find yourself motivated to broaden your horizons some day.  

This will be the last response I waste my time typing to your one and two sentence replies. 

#44
BlackwindTheCommander

BlackwindTheCommander
  • Members
  • 911 messages
Never had a problem in either Mass Effect with it.

#45
AkiKishi

AkiKishi
  • Members
  • 10 898 messages

elearon1 wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...
Did they also ask you to play the characters for them? Because they may as well have had done.


And again we bounce up against the wall of your limited understanding of roleplaying.  I actually feel sorry for you, I do, because you've evidently been limited in your experience to mediocre GMs, gaming theory, and quite possibly elementary rp.  But, running into people who have convinced themselves there is only 1 right way to do anything is hardly unique; you find people refusing to open themselves to broader experience in just about every form of thought and expression.  Saddly, you seem like you might be an intelligent fellow, so I hope you find yourself motivated to broaden your horizons some day.  

This will be the last response I waste my time typing to your one and two sentence replies. 



Ironic  because I'm the one that  feels sorry for you and to a lesser extent your players. I've played pre-gen characters before to help out a DM but that's acting not roleplaying. I'm acting the role assigned to me , thats quite different from roleplaying. You don't need to broaden a defintion when another term already fits better.

Back to PnP.
Did you ever pull control of a players character mid game and add stuff that the player had no clue about ? DA2 does that.

While you can direct Hawke, you cannot roleplay Hawke without making up your own definitions.

#46
Lumikki

Lumikki
  • Members
  • 4 239 messages
What voice has to do with anything?

Lets change the avatar look like red ball, I mean we don't need animated picture of avatar, do we? It's cheaper to not make one. You starting to see picture?

Real problem is the LORE of the DA world, what can so dramasticly affect by class player is playing. It should not matter for lore what class player playes. So, because lore, we demand that our avatar is treated like in the lore it should be. Now we blame everyting else for our issues, but not lore design. Why not, that's where the real issue is comming from.

Point is, it's bad idea to create lore what would require different story content based classes. If company doesn't have any plans to create more than one story inside same game. If class would not have any affect to lore design, then it would be easyer to create just one story. So, the DA lore was mistake in first place, Bioware did not predict it causing issues with players.

Modifié par Lumikki, 14 avril 2011 - 01:27 .


#47
Zem_

Zem_
  • Members
  • 370 messages

Hatchetman77 wrote...
So what does everyone think? Am I off base on this or do we think we can still roleplay with a fully voiced avatar with a system like this?


What in the world does ANYTHING you wrote before this last line in your post have to do with a VOICED avatar?  Unless you're trying to say that voicing the main character limits the number of lines you can speak for costs reasons, which I suppose is somewhat true, but then again not because everyone ELSE is voiced as they were in the last game and they have to have their lines spoken to respond to your lines even if you aren't voicing them.

[Bluff/Lie] Is entirely possible since it really just changes the intent and not the spoken words of the line so again has nothing to do with a voiced avatar. 

The choice to accumulate diplomatic, sarcastic, agressive responses and have that affect future choices again... nothing to do with voiced/not-voiced main character. 

#48
Zem_

Zem_
  • Members
  • 370 messages

BobSmith101 wrote...
Back to PnP.
Did you ever pull control of a players character mid game and add stuff that the player had no clue about ? DA2 does that.


Did your DM always insist that your character could only speak responses he himself had written for you?  DAO does that.

While you can direct Hawke, you cannot roleplay Hawke without making up your own definitions.


Making up their own definitions of what roleplaying is and isn't is all ANYBODY does.  Including you.  It's not like there is some official defnintion somewhere that actually states that picking from a list of pre-written responses is roleplaying so long as you know what you're going to say beforehand.  But picking from a list of pre-written responses where you only have a hint of what is going to be said... isn't.   

In BOTH cases, you are picking from a list of pre-written responses.   I could just as easily claim NEITHER is roleplaying were that my own definition of roleplaying.

Another way to look at it is this.  By reading the exact words you're playing the game of deciding what the script writer intended with each line.... not really what your character intends or what YOU intend.  Words delivered in a sarcastic tone can be taken entirely differently than the very same words delivered in a sincere tone (or a suggestive tone).  Because of that, the script-writer in DAO had to avoid such ambiguity.  A voiced player character and the system of icons actually lets them write lines that would otherwise have been ambgiuous if only written down without the added information of tone.

#49
Phantom13NWN2

Phantom13NWN2
  • Members
  • 124 messages
Get rid of the dialogue wheel. Just that the character has a voice breaks immersion from a roleplaying perspective because its not your own voice, secondly, giving the PC a voice takes up a LOT of content, disc space that could be better spend somewhere else, last, the dialogue wheel has so little options, you can be the comedian, the unbelievably nice guy, or the ****, thats it, and if you dont ALWAYS choose the same option in the same conversation, your character ends up sounding like he has multiple personalities, you cant for instance choose the upper choices then choose the bottom choice.

Modifié par Phantom13NWN2, 14 avril 2011 - 02:25 .


#50
elearon1

elearon1
  • Members
  • 1 769 messages

BobSmith101 wrote...
Ironic  because I'm the one that  feels sorry for you and to a lesser extent your players. I've played pre-gen characters before to help out a DM but that's acting not roleplaying. I'm acting the role assigned to me , thats quite different from roleplaying. You don't need to broaden a defintion when another term already fits better.

Back to PnP.
Did you ever pull control of a players character mid game and add stuff that the player had no clue about ? DA2 does that.


Actually, acting isn't so much different from roleplaying, and for you to say so tells me you've never been an actor. (Not counting high school, I acted for 5 years on stage)  

In fact, roleplaying is a lot like method acting - embracing and becoming your character; absorbing them until they become a part of you and, vice versa, you a part of them.

I find it interesting you state you've "helped" your GM out ... which suggests you don't GM yourself; this might have something to do with your limited perception of what constitutes roleplay, or it may just be a coincodence.  I, however, have been GMing for 20 years and seen AT LEAST that many different forms of roleplaying materialize in that time.  So for you to suggest that rp has only one definition only demonstrates the limit of your experience.

For example, apparently you are telling me that if a player asks me to generate a character for him - and so I produce a character with a detailed backstory, with connections to politics, the world, organizations, religions, nations, etc.  Then hand that character over to the player and tell him to use the information and make that character his own - he isn't roleplaying ... and in fact, wasn't roleplaying that character every week for two years?  I think that claim would put you at odds with another 20 plus year rpg veteran. 

As for your question about pulling characters aside and "doing stuff" to them ... I don't actually recall this happening in DA2.  The events which occurred over those three year intervals were all things I set in motion before the gap.  Yes, I do incorporate downtime into my games, where the PCs spend months or years tending to their own, personal interests, before being drug back into adventuring.  Yes, I do tell players that "during those years some things happened, you learned some skills you were studying, you bought that house you were trying to purchase, those investments you made had some ups and downs, you made some friends, and you made some enemies."  Then, we use that information to inform, some aspects of the characters' non adventuring lives. (and sometimes these do tie into events in their adventuring lives)  Because, you see, my worlds are active and the PCs aren't the only ones doing things ... certainly aren't the only ones moving and shaking.

In the last 20 or so years I have run many, many gamers, and never had any of them claim they weren't being given the opportunity to rp ... or that their roleplay was being taken away from them. (well, at least not after that rocky first year or so that all GMs go through)  Doing some quick math, and not counting the periods where I may have run more than once a week, at 52 weeks a year I have run over 1040 gaming sessions, each one 6-10 hours in length. (putting my hours of running at no less, and actually significantly more than, 8300)  I have known dozens of players, run dozens of systems, own over five grand in gaming books, aided in the development of a major rpg, written material for professional rpg books and been hired to write an entire splatbook for another rpg of - at that time - some note.  By any account, I am an expert in the rpg field.

And I am telling you - your tiny, limited definition of roleplaying, is just that ... tiny and limited.