Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 4517704" data-attributes="member: 3192">Acting is an even more narrow kind of role-playing (type 3) and characters are more or less defined by personality there.&nbsp; Scripts, specific motivations, as little as a mood description, whatever.&nbsp; Those are unneeded in traditional &quot;role-playing&quot; (type 2) because you can choose to do whatever you wish (no one can say &quot;you're playing your character wrong&quot;).&nbsp; There needn't be any rules for character portrayal, but any rules a game wants to give shouldn't necessarily interrupt your ability to succeed in the role.&nbsp; They may also be moving closer to theater games: defining personality in attempt to engender kinds of personality-based conflicts/situations.&nbsp; But in those cases you still don't barter or bet or whatever to &quot;win&quot; narration rights.&nbsp; You still only control your character.In most games there are little to no rules on how to portray your PC, so Players may choose to act (#3) while role-playing (#2).&nbsp; This is like playing baseball while dressed as Mickey Mantle (example is a few pages back).&nbsp; It won't help you succeed, but you can certainly pretend you're him.&nbsp; &quot;In-character&quot; and &quot;out-of-character&quot; play delineates this difference.I follow you.&nbsp; I think that can exist without rules though.&nbsp; And what D&amp;D and other RPGs give us is a chance to actually be the characters we read about in books.&nbsp; Rather than &quot;just saying&quot; we're the characters doing great things.&nbsp; (The &quot;NAR&quot; rules vs. R-P game rules distinction again)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="howandwhy99, post: 4517704, member: 3192"] Acting is an even more narrow kind of role-playing (type 3) and characters are more or less defined by personality there. Scripts, specific motivations, as little as a mood description, whatever. Those are unneeded in traditional "role-playing" (type 2) because you can choose to do whatever you wish (no one can say "you're playing your character wrong"). There needn't be any rules for character portrayal, but any rules a game wants to give shouldn't necessarily interrupt your ability to succeed in the role. They may also be moving closer to theater games: defining personality in attempt to engender kinds of personality-based conflicts/situations. But in those cases you still don't barter or bet or whatever to "win" narration rights. You still only control your character. In most games there are little to no rules on how to portray your PC, so Players may choose to act (#3) while role-playing (#2). This is like playing baseball while dressed as Mickey Mantle (example is a few pages back). It won't help you succeed, but you can certainly pretend you're him. "In-character" and "out-of-character" play delineates this difference. I follow you. I think that can exist without rules though. And what D&D and other RPGs give us is a chance to actually be the characters we read about in books. Rather than "just saying" we're the characters doing great things. (The "NAR" rules vs. R-P game rules distinction again) [/QUOTE]

Verification