What is "Roll Playing versus Role Playing?"It is a term used derisively against those who are focused on the mechanical aspects of Dungeons & Dragons, or less frequently gaming.
This is non-trivial for at least two bizarre reasons that spring to mind.
First, the current, yet canceled, line of Dungeons and Dragons is explicitly focused on character skill and mathematical representations of combat.
Second, it commits the common error of mistaking "role-play" to mean 'taking on the personality of a fictional character (1)' with 'making a choice as if you were in the situation (2)' i.e. taking the role of a war game unit which was the original meaning used by Gygax and company.
The second definition is occasionally used in gaming, but the lack of mechanical interface puts it in the realm of thespianism, outside the purview of a game. You can after all, act like a robber baron while playing monopoly but it does not mechanically interface with play any more then deciding that your character is gregarious.
(1) To assume the attitudes, actions, and discourse of (another), especially in a make-believe situation in an effort to understand a differing point of view or social interaction: Management trainees were given a chance to role-play labor negotiators.
(2) To experiment with or experience (a situation or viewpoint) by playing a role
From the comments it appears that I have completely failed to communicate my point successfully.
Imagine you are playing a wargame. Instead of deciding what each and every squad of units is doing on the battlefield, you decide what a single figure does - i.e. you take the role of the figure. You make decisions for that figure instead of for the entire force.
I would say it is explicitly NOT "interacting with the scenario from the point of view of the character, using his/her knowledge, inclinations, and priorities over your own." If you examine the record, you will find reference to "Bill's third level fighter." Clearly the character was Bill's avatar for playing the game, that is to say "taking the role" of a single unit.
You experiment with the situation by 'taking a role'. It is you making the choice. The character is simply your piece for interacting with the game.
My issue (and part of the thrust of this post) is that non-mechanical rigamarole around play is just that - not that it isn't fun to screw around during play and talk like the characters. It's just not part of the game proper. "The role-play aspect" is exactly the part of pretending to be a king in chess or a banker in monopoly -- separate and not integrated into the game itself. This is a tautological statement being that there are no mechanical factors or systems that represent "the role-play aspect". (Note that the obvious example, alignment, is about spiritual mechanical interface with the game and not representative of personality)
As an aside: People play that way for 40 years, because the game is about a personal challenge to the player. They continue to play because the game continues to be challenging.