Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MoogleEmpMog" data-source="post: 3785214" data-attributes="member: 22882">Mine has been the exact opposite.&nbsp; When combat is lethal (not Dogs in the Vineyard-style &quot;lethal by the player's choice&quot; but Rolemaster-style &quot;lethal all the time, every time&quot;), players disassociate themselves from their characters and play them as disposable playing pieces.Not much reason to negotiate with someone to make progress if you can keep throwing characters at the problem until someone in the party gets a lucky crit; replacement PCs or cheap resurrection will surely be available imminently.&nbsp; Not much reason to invest in your character if he's just going to die like a chump the next time somebody on the other side rolls high.I'm a bit more torn on this.I *like* settings with consequences, mostly because they're more fun to play in and usually represent good roleplaying on the part of the GM.However, the specific example you're giving has very little to do with what I would call roleplaying.What does lowering themselves to interact with mere mortals have to do with roleplay?&nbsp; If I'm playing a character like Achilles, roleplaying MEANS I treat 'mere mortals' like trash, deigning to interact with them mostly at spear-point!&nbsp; Lowering myself to talk with them would be BAD roleplaying.You seem to equate &quot;roleplaying&quot; with &quot;stuff that isn't combat.&quot;&nbsp; Which seems like a rather wonky definition, since the vast majority of alleged RPGs are primarily focused on combat.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MoogleEmpMog, post: 3785214, member: 22882"] Mine has been the exact opposite. When combat is lethal (not Dogs in the Vineyard-style "lethal by the player's choice" but Rolemaster-style "lethal all the time, every time"), players disassociate themselves from their characters and play them as disposable playing pieces. Not much reason to negotiate with someone to make progress if you can keep throwing characters at the problem until someone in the party gets a lucky crit; replacement PCs or cheap resurrection will surely be available imminently. Not much reason to invest in your character if he's just going to die like a chump the next time somebody on the other side rolls high. I'm a bit more torn on this. I *like* settings with consequences, mostly because they're more fun to play in and usually represent good roleplaying on the part of the GM. However, the specific example you're giving has very little to do with what I would call roleplaying. What does lowering themselves to interact with mere mortals have to do with roleplay? If I'm playing a character like Achilles, roleplaying MEANS I treat 'mere mortals' like trash, deigning to interact with them mostly at spear-point! Lowering myself to talk with them would be BAD roleplaying. You seem to equate "roleplaying" with "stuff that isn't combat." Which seems like a rather wonky definition, since the vast majority of alleged RPGs are primarily focused on combat. [/QUOTE]

Verification