Players choose what their PCs do . . .

G

Guest 6801328

Guest
The irony, for me, is that FrogReaver has taken what for me is a strong personal preference about roleplaying...that you and only you control your character, "unless magic"...and has tried to claim it as the definition of roleplaying. Even I don't go that far.

And, really, by "unless magic" I mean explicit rules in a given system that define the times a player loses control, preferably with the results pretty narrowly defined. Insanity in CoC, Shadow in The One Ring, etc. The thing I object to is the GM (or another player) dictating what a PC things/does/feels just because that's how they think the story should unfold.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I kinda think that you're "Saelorning" on this issue right now. If you are arguing something that causes the likes of Pemerton, Tony Vargas, Elfcrusher, Maxperson, Ovinomancer, and hawkeyefan to collectively unite in their disagreement with you, then you have to wonder how badly you screwed up if the Justice League and the Legion of Doom have teamed-up against you. (I'll let them fight it out who belongs to which team in this scenario. It doesn't matter.)

Dibs on Superman and Lex Luthor, depending on which group I get.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
The irony, for me, is that FrogReaver has taken what for me is a strong personal preference about roleplaying...that you and only you control your character, "unless magic"...and has tried to claim it as the definition of roleplaying. Even I don't go that far.

I don't, either. That definition kinda sorta fits for D&D standard, but certainly isn't the only way you can play D&D. Nor is it specific enough, since there are different ways you can roleplay within that personal preference.
 

Nagol

Unimportant
<snip>

I think that it has more to do with the growing recognition among even roleplayers that human beings are irrational, biological creatures who are psychologically pushed and pulled in ways beyond even what they can rationally act upon. Roleplaying games are also about emulating certain facets of the human experience, including such things. As [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION] said, our impulses and our ideals do not necessarily match. The roleplaying is not necessarily about choosing whether or not we have these impulses but what we do when faced with them.

I'm not sure it's a growing recognition. All of the games I listed are from the 1980s. Outside of more fringe indie games, the '90s and '00s seemed to have a strong pushback against mechanics that would take control away from the player even in more egregious circumstances. Even NPC reaction, which most games had more rules moved much more firmly under GM fiat rather than tests (morale and loyalty checks mostly vanished, for example). Part of the movement seemed driven by having the PCs actions always meet player visualization (in a way entirely opposite to how other mechanics constrain PC ability regardless of player conception) and part driven by believing the GM would know best how to make the situations interesting and checks and tests simply impeded flow.
 





G

Guest 6801328

Guest
Player: Ima Paladin.

DM: You feel bad.

Not so objectionable now, is it?

Sounds to me like you're trying to impose your own preferences on the rest of us. If you don't like paladins you don't have to play one. If one is in your group you could just refluff it in your head as a Dwarf Fighter-Cleric dual-wielding very well-balanced battleaxes with pointy spikes on the ends. You absurd ragequitting jerk.

EDIT: Sorry, trying to spitefully impose your preferences.
 


Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top