Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6208280" data-attributes="member: 4937">No, I am of the opinion that a player cannot perfectly play the mentality of a character separate from the mentality of the player, especially when it comes to matters of intelligence and insight.&nbsp; It's easier for example for an intelligent person to adequately play an intelligent person with a different belief and ethical outlook than their own, than it is for them to play someone who is always clueless.&nbsp; And it's easier for a DM to do this with respect to an NPC, than it is for a player to do with a PC, because the player invests his ego in the PC and is generally emotionally committed to the PC's health and success.&nbsp;&nbsp; When it becomes a matter of victory or survival, it's easy to convince yourself to fudge and pull a Forest Gump trope - where the 'stupid' character you play has an intelligent person's insight but is by convention of the story unaware of his own insights and understanding.No, it's difficult for everyone all the time and impossible for everyone at least some of the time.&nbsp; You should provide some evidence or argument for this belief then.Well, if you'll back up to the beginning of my interaction in this thread you'll see my actual belief is that mechanical resolution systems are independent of whether role playing takes place.&nbsp; Ultimately, whether role-playing takes place is a decision of the group, and not a decision of the rules.&nbsp;&nbsp; Nonetheless, I agree with some other posters in this thread that mechanical resolution systems for social conflict are often in practice used to eliminate the need for and utility of role-playing, and that highly detailed mechanical systems tend reduce social interaction to just another tactical war game and thereby produce a game that often has a character very much the opposite of the designers intentions.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6208280, member: 4937"] No, I am of the opinion that a player cannot perfectly play the mentality of a character separate from the mentality of the player, especially when it comes to matters of intelligence and insight. It's easier for example for an intelligent person to adequately play an intelligent person with a different belief and ethical outlook than their own, than it is for them to play someone who is always clueless. And it's easier for a DM to do this with respect to an NPC, than it is for a player to do with a PC, because the player invests his ego in the PC and is generally emotionally committed to the PC's health and success. When it becomes a matter of victory or survival, it's easy to convince yourself to fudge and pull a Forest Gump trope - where the 'stupid' character you play has an intelligent person's insight but is by convention of the story unaware of his own insights and understanding. No, it's difficult for everyone all the time and impossible for everyone at least some of the time. You should provide some evidence or argument for this belief then. Well, if you'll back up to the beginning of my interaction in this thread you'll see my actual belief is that mechanical resolution systems are independent of whether role playing takes place. Ultimately, whether role-playing takes place is a decision of the group, and not a decision of the rules. Nonetheless, I agree with some other posters in this thread that mechanical resolution systems for social conflict are often in practice used to eliminate the need for and utility of role-playing, and that highly detailed mechanical systems tend reduce social interaction to just another tactical war game and thereby produce a game that often has a character very much the opposite of the designers intentions. [/QUOTE]

Verification