Oni
First Post
I thought I'd indicated I thought so.
Which was appreciated btw, it was nice to know it was read if not necessarily agreed with.
No, I didn't say that. What I did say was that the objection to what I said was only non-trivial, if you were trying to justify not playing your flaws.
This is where that missing response I didn't write comes in. I liked your treatment, but what you failed to note that I thought you should have was that, from the perspective of an observer watching a role-player play the game, in the case of a good role play it would be impossible to tell if any particular proposition or characteristic was motivated by the roleplayers careful forethought during the creation of the character, or by the organic and extemporaneous creation of character as a result of game events. The two things, pretty much by definition, have to appear to be harmonious if the observer is to believe the character has a consistant personality. This nitpick over the technique by which we establish that the int 6 character is stupid, really has no bearing over whether or not an int 6 character is stupid unless you are trying to say that the int 6 character is not in fact stupid despite both the implied value of the attribute 'intelligence' and the mechanical impact of that intelligence.
In short, while there are some real differences between the role players you group in type 1 and those in type 2, most of those differences have to do more with the pitfalls that a particular style is more likely to land you in if you aren't careful than they have to do with any functional difference in play. As you yourself said, pretty much all real world cases are going to lie on a spectrum between the two extremes. Both techniques can and probably certainly do inform good roleplay. None of that establishes that an int 6 character being played in a way that communicates high intelligence is anything but bad roleplay.
I'm not sure I conveyed what I was trying to say as clearly as I might have, because if I am reading you correctly (and I am trying to make sure I don't misrepresent you if I can help it) you haven't quite grasped what I was getting at. As we start heading more toward the extremes of the second style, the evolution of character through play, we can discard the character stats as being nothing but mechanics. Our pure type 2 roleplayer does not look at his 6 int and immediately assume his character is stupid he just understands that he has a poor chance of success whenever that mechanic is tested. Instead the personality is formed at the point where mechanics and player meet. The player offers personality, the mechanics dictate results where the come into play, the player responds. This give and take over the long run sculpts a unique personality and presence in the game world. So yes, I guess I am in fact saying that it is entirely in the realm of possibility to have an int 6 character that is not stupid, that the type 2 approach at its purest forms a kind of alchemy in which a character is greater than the sum of its parts, player and mechanics.
So you would agree then that if the player tried to play his character as if he had no flaws, it wouldn't be particularly subtle/realistic/good roleplaying?
It then follows that we have very little disagreement. If we observe a player playing his character as if he had no flaws, then we'd be observing bad role play.
I would agree that someone that declares there character is perfect or good at everything is hardly on the right track. However I think it extremely difficult, maybe even impossible, to actually play a character without flaws. Consider the fact that such a player, despite any declarations on his part, is in fact not going to be good at everything, especially when mechanics come into play. Suddenly the dice start unveiling a compensating braggart. What the player does with this and his willingness to interact with the game world I think is more telling.
I can just as easily say that no well conceived personality is going to fail to grow or deepen in response to events over the course of play and that no personality, no matter how well realized to begin with, is going to be fully complete and so new ideas, depths, and attributes will develop over the course of play. However, this growth in the character is unlikely to be however we approach roleplaying 'the character gets smarter' unless there is some mechanical justification for it.
Well depending on how firmly your views rest on the stats dictate personality end of things, it seems quite possible to me your opportunities for character growth could be limited by those same mechanical strictures. And on the flip side of that, if you divorce personality from mechanics it is entirely possibly that the character could become smarter, as the player themselves becomes more adept.