Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aenghus" data-source="post: 6684011" data-attributes="member: 2656">I believe it's more important that a player portrays their character in a way that's at least minimally compatible with the expectations of that particular game table than trying to meet some theoretical standard that can never meet universal agreement.Some groups are into token roleplay as a veneer over skirmish wargaming. Others are close to method actors in their rejection of the metagame and mechanics in general. IMO the vast majority are much closer to the middle on these issues, and have some tolerance for different emphasises on PC portrayal. The stated and unstated goals of an RPG group, whether the groups or those of individual players, are substantially a matter of taste. How well the group's chosen systems, houserules and social contract match the groups address those goals can (hopefully) be debated usefully as to whether they are fit for purpose, but the choice of goals, as a matter of personal preference, requires much less justification.Even for those who have roleplaying as metagame avoidance as a goal, there is a huge spectrum of possibilities on valid PC choices, backstories, types of portrayal, acting, IC motivations, PvP, genre fidelity, humour etc etc. A particular PC might be portrayed in a wonderfully entertaining way by his player, but not match other necessary criteria for a PC in that game, such as compatible motivations, skills and backstory. Some groups might be fine with such a PC, others may not.So, IMO, an exclusionary definition of RPGs that excludes the first mode of RPG playing and many groups that still play RPGs, some for decades, isn't useful or reasonable. Acknowledging that the goals of a group are a matter of taste and establishing a consensus can complicate game startups, but IMO it's a method that produces better, more coherent games.</blockquote>

Verification