Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8161102" data-attributes="member: 16814">Of course not.  In Monopoly, you're playing the role of a real-estate mogul in a game trying to show how bad capitalism, not the little dog.In other words, bad choice, because Monopoly does have you assume a role.  Try Sorry!  No role there.That's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying I can play a role without play-acting it.  I gave a clear play example earlier in the thread between Bob the Fighter and Fynn' the Many-Titled.  Bob's player never once used first person or even related Bob's thoughts in any way.  He certainly didn't use a funny voice or play-act as Bob.  And, yet, he was roleplaying Bob the Fighter as much as Fynn's player.  You don't have to play-act to roleplay.There's a huge lattitude in "portray you character" that doesn't reach play-acting at all, which is my entire point.  I don't have to express the character in acting to role play the character.  And there's a range of this between a Monopoly pawn and a thespian.I disagree, because at that point you're not disentangling the table differences from the game.  You're here telling my I'm not even roleplaying if I don't meet your minimum threshold of play-acting at the table.  This isn't even required by the rules of the game, but you're insisting that it is because the word "roleplaying" is involved, and you're adamant about your personal definition of what qualifies.  The DMGs disagree with you, because they explicitly don't require these things, even though most of the give some lip service to the various ways it can work.Totally agree, but when I'm talking about how 5e works, it can't be with the assumptions at your table.  It shouldn't be with the assumptions at mine.  It should only be about how the rules work, until and unless I'm explicitly talking about how my table has changed or added to those.</blockquote>

Verification