SL, the "role-playing game"...is THAT what it is?

If you only have one avatar, and that avatar is an intentionlly close aproximation of your real world self in both appearance and behavior, then you are not "Roleplaying" in SL. You are merely experiencing a virtual world, "as yourself". I suppose that if you had multiple accounts that fit this definition, you're still not roleplaying. For example, if you have an alt, but only use that alt for the purpose of testing permissions.

If you choose to represent yourself with a decidedly different appearance in SL than your Real self, or if you choose to behave in a manner that does not correspond to your real self, then you are role-playing. Ditto if you play as an opposite gender to your real self, or if you play multiple accounts that are dissimilar from one another in appearance and actions.

A couple of points:

Believing something worthy of discussion =/= getting "hung up on what someone else calls it".

And:

"What someone else calls" something is not necessarily a trivial matter. For instance, a few years back, many African-American adult males made quite a point of getting across their view that being called 'boy' was a non-trivial matter. Were they wrong?

Ah, the "Let's compare serious RL issues to the make believe SL world". Gotcha. I'm in the wrong thread. Pardon me.

As most of us in the Forums know, there's a difference of opinion on how to characterize Second Life. But the news media seem to have settled on "role-playing game".

Last month's news about the UK couple divorcing over an 'affair' that took place inworld is a typical example: In a November 14 story, Time Magazine characterized SL as "the online role-playing game Second Life". And a Google search of "role playing game" with "Second", "Life", and "Online", has over 125,000 hits.

Let's leave aside the 'game' part and just look at 'role-playing':


Though some have said that any avatar you choose---no matter how near your real-life appearance---is by definition a 'role' that you play, I question that. If that's so, then isn't getting dressed in the real-world, and combing your hair, and moving and talking the way you do, just as much 'role-playing'?

If you define 'role-playing' that broadly, then doesn't the term become meaningless?

What I'm asking, here in Resident Answers, is: If you don't happen to be a person who plays a vampire in SL, or an anthropomorphic animal, or the opposite gender, ora a child, or a robot, or a slavemaster or slave-----if, in fact, your avatar isn't all that far from your real-life self---then ARE you 'role-playing'?

Where is the line drawn?

If just making an avatar is 'role-playing', then what in non-virtual life ISN'T role-playing (for the reasons described above)?



I guess I'm saying that it's fine to play roles in Second Life. It may even be helpful to people, to do this.

But....there are a LOT of people who DON'T play roles in SL.

So: is it fair to characterize SL as a 'role-playing' phenomenon?

Though some have said that any avatar you choose---no matter how near your real-life appearance---is by definition a 'role' that you play,

I question that. If that's so, then isn't getting dressed in the real-world, and combing your hair, and moving and talking the way you do, just as much 'role-playing'?

Where is the line drawn?

So: is it fair to characterize SL as a 'role-playing' phenomenon?

I always maintain there is an element of roleplaying for everyone in as much as you claim your avatar is no different from the RL You, it still is not the RL You.

visual chatroom with manipulatives

"Roleplaying game" has it's own definition my old Webster's Dictionary: "a game in which participants adopt the roles of imaginary characters under the direction of a Game Master."

I don't think it's a role playing game where the person takes on a role and is given a quest to accomplish a goal. That is the true definition of a role playing game.

Good point---and that's another reason to wish for an alternative descriptor to offer the media.

The use of "Second Life, the role-playing game" misleads people who might otherwise give SL a try. They may decide 'I'm not interested in anything like WoW, so I won't bother checking out SL', or 'I'm not interested in playing a role [in general, even if not in the context of a questing game] so I won't bother checking out SL'.

Who knows, any one of those misled people might have turned out to be a valuable member of the SL community.

if ya got the money you can build a wide variety of things. So money plays a big role in SL.

When I played Everquest the majority of players were not and did not consider themselves roleplayers.

I build a wide variety of things, but that's not what I spend my money on.

How can you build without spending, unless it was gifted to you? But even if it the money to build was gifted to you, it's still money.

Not necessarily. I know some kids, mostly past puberty girls, who aren't interested in any type of online game.

I asked my niece if she played WoW when I saw her at Christmas.

She quipped: Heck no, I don't even have time for pleasure reading. I'd like to read a book one of these days, other than a textbook. So she simply has other paths of leisure entertainment she'd like to follow, and the SL community is no better nor worse without her. And I know so many people who have no interest whatsoever in even trying nor joining any online video experience.

She's healthy now and is enjoying what little real life leisure time she has with her friends. She loves real life.

Most of my family is not into what I'd call "fantasy". I'm not either. I prefer to read a non-fiction book over a fiction one. Or to watch a film based on a real life story over a fiction one. It's a too each their own thing including the internet as one only has so many hours in a day to enjoy life. If I were healthier, I'd be out working rather than here.

However, I don't think my niece could make or break SL if she thought of it as a role playing game or not. I'm happy she is this way and is enjoying her real life and real friends.

I remember my real life when I was healthier and SL doesn't bring that interaction with all the facial expressions, real life hugs, gazing deep into someone's real eyes back, not to mention just flirting and laughing or goofing off.

There is no comparison to rl and sl interaction with human beings.

still a visual chatroom. they just choose to maximize the manipulatives and minimize the chat.

there is also a financial gain aspect, that has nothing to do with chat or manipulatives either. still just a visual chatroom.

I'm genuinely sorry to hear about your health. And I'm sure that others who are also living with the situation of having less access to non-virtual activities, and hence place a high value on their SL time, would agree with you that there are real differences.

But that was never my point.

Also, I was never trying to make the point that you seem to be attempting to refute in that post: you seem to be refuting the idea that Everyone Would Love SL.

I never claimed that.

Sure, there will always be people like your niece, who prefer to allocate their leisure time differently. That's common sense and that's fine.

My point was, instead, about people who might actually be good candidates for enjoying and supporting SL----but who never give it a chance because they've been misled about what SL truly is, by the 'role-playing' label.

There are people who might really love SL (and contribute to it, financially and creatively), but if all they ever hear is 'the role-playing game', they might dismiss SL because they aren't attracted by the idea of role-playing.

SL does contain role-playing, but that's not all it contains. And to consistently label it 'role-playing' does a disservice to all the other aspects of SL.

You don't necessarily need to spend money to build in SL

If people enjoy being on the internet or have more leisure time than others, I'm sure they'd check it out if they were interested.

Are you trying to pick up more on SL being a less violent game than other online games for instance?

The use of "Second Life, the role-playing game" misleads people who might otherwise give SL a try. They may decide 'I'm not interested in anything like WoW, so I won't bother checking out SL', or 'I'm not interested in playing a role [in general, even if not in the context of a questing game] so I won't bother checking out SL'.

How can one build without money being involved to purchase the items

What "items" are you referring to? It all starts with a cube. Click create, click the ground, you're building. Keep doing that and eventually you end up with something like this plane: http://www.sluniverse.com/pics/snap.aspx?p=286220.jpg&w=800

Built that in the Lost Creatures sandbox on Sables d'Alliez, and the Linden vehicle sandboxes near Ahern. Didn't cost me a penny.

Right, so this is not intended as just an exercise in semantics. More like branding.

It's not enough for us to decide "role-playing" is acceptable, perhaps in the sense that "all the world's a stage." Rather, it would need to evoke Second Life-like associations for the general public--which it surely doesn't.

For a descriptor to have a chance of adoption by the media, accuracy is no more important than broad familiarity. Do they think "virtual world" or "virtual reality" is too much techno-jargon?