Search results

But, the dice tell you how well you attack. The dice tell you whether or not you know something. You're saying that what your wizard knows isn't part of your character? You don't know what you character knows, but, you absolutely know 100% of the mental state of the character? How does that...

The thing is, you're assuming none of us HAVE played with DM's like what the other side claims as priorities. Heck, I used to BE a DM that would have agreed 100% with everything you've said, once upon a time. You seem to think that our preferences are born out of ignorance, yet, get really...

And yet, you have zero problem with dice determining every single other element of the game. It tells you how good a warrior you are, how knowledgeable your wizard is, how pious your priest is. But, giving you direction over how gullible you are is not acceptable? The level of double...

Ugh. The worst of all worlds. The only way I can convince an NPC is if I game the DM and hope that whatever reading I have of the DM gives me the results I want. I thought you insisted on a neutral DM? What could possibly be more neutral than following mechanics?

Except that the determination to not run away has nothing to do with playing "in character" but, with whatever is most advantageous to the player. Running away makes a LOT of sense when a beholder just disintegrated your friend. Running away when you are already wounded and baddies are closing...

So, essentially, we can't have these things in the game because we cannot trust players to actually play in character. Hrm... how does that dovetail with the notion that immersive gamers want to inhabit their characters and act like it's a real world? Seems that the notion of immersive...

Typically, I think this action is prefaced with the statement of, "Hold my beer."

I suppose, at the end of the day, this is why things like morale rules don't apply to PC's. I believe that they should. I absolutely believe that PC's should be affected by Persuasion checks (or whatever the system uses) and the system should reward players who do so.

I get what you're saying here, and, for a large amount I agree. Someone who just disrupts the game for the sake of disrupting the game is being a jerk. OTOH, playing the game and always choosing the most rational, logical, advantageous option is not being true to a character either. The...

Hamlet enters the chat Odysseus enters the chat nearly every character in a drama enters the chat

There are all sorts of board games where that's true. Asymetrical board games have been around for years. Good grief, Heroquest has been around since '89. GW has made an entire empire out of that sort of thing. I would hardly call them role playing games though. What people call Thespian...

That's like saying I take on the role of the shoe in Monopoly. In very gamist play, being a fighter or a cleric or whatever, doesn't really change anything. They are just tools for resolving things in the game. It's essentially purely pawn stance where your character is just that - a token in...

Again, since we all actually KNOW what's meant here, the actual verbiage is less important than simply getting on with the discussion. I'm groovy with calling it Throat Warbler Mangrove if that works.

Well, not really. In very gamist play, the idea of role assumption isn't a priority at all. Early D&D, for example, was strongly characterized by this. Heck, the idea of role assumption was strongly pooh poohed for a long time by a pretty vocal segment of gamers. I've certainly played with...

Can we now move on?

Then I suggest moving forward, we simply use Playing Childhood heroes. Would that be acceptable to everyone? So, if we take the original quote and replace "Princess Play" with "Playing Childhood Heroes", is the criticism then acceptable?

Sorry I missed that. What word would you prefer?

Since you understand the meaning, why not suggest an acceptable term and we can all use that and move on instead of endlessly kvetching about a term?