Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4984382" data-attributes="member: 4937">I thought I'd indicated I thought so.Ok.  I probably should have posted that response to your even-handed and fair review I thought about writing. 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.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 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.</blockquote>

Verification