Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4984568" data-attributes="member: 4937">Ariosto, I agree that 'persona creation' is not superior to 'vicarious play' and I feel - quite unlike the original author - that both are 'role-playing' and are within the original intention of the game.&nbsp; If I imagine what I would be like if I were a plains dwelling barbarian from a wild tribal culture that values martial virtue above all other merits and talents, its really only a matter of how far I want to take that imagination that determines whether I'm doing 'persona creation' or 'vicarious play'.&nbsp; I don't think the contrast is as great as Mr. Pulsipher seemed to think it was.&nbsp; One says &quot;What would it be like to be a plains dwelling nomadic warrior?&quot;, and the other is only a matter of saying things like, &quot;If I truly was a plains dwelling barbarian, I would likely not be as much of a pacifist as I am in real life nor would I likely follow the same moral code that I do now.&nbsp; I would have learned a whole different way of looking at the world.&quot;&nbsp; Both explore the world in the first person, treating the interaction between the player and the world as direct and personal as if you were doing these things yourself, rather than you moving or controlling a game peice on board.And both are entertaining to both the player and his fellow players, including the game referee, provided that they are undertaken consciously and thoughtfully.&nbsp; As the original author notes however, 'persona creation' is essential to the game - the DM must do it - where as 'vicarious play' is merely a choice.And for that matter, there is nothing inherently superior to playing a 'role-playing game' and playing a tactical wargame with only minimal role-playing elements.&nbsp;&nbsp; If you want to dispense with this role-playing nonsense entirely because you don't think it is for you, then whom am I to judge.&nbsp; Have fun with that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 4984568, member: 4937"] Ariosto, I agree that 'persona creation' is not superior to 'vicarious play' and I feel - quite unlike the original author - that both are 'role-playing' and are within the original intention of the game. If I imagine what I would be like if I were a plains dwelling barbarian from a wild tribal culture that values martial virtue above all other merits and talents, its really only a matter of how far I want to take that imagination that determines whether I'm doing 'persona creation' or 'vicarious play'. I don't think the contrast is as great as Mr. Pulsipher seemed to think it was. One says "What would it be like to be a plains dwelling nomadic warrior?", and the other is only a matter of saying things like, "If I truly was a plains dwelling barbarian, I would likely not be as much of a pacifist as I am in real life nor would I likely follow the same moral code that I do now. I would have learned a whole different way of looking at the world." Both explore the world in the first person, treating the interaction between the player and the world as direct and personal as if you were doing these things yourself, rather than you moving or controlling a game peice on board. And both are entertaining to both the player and his fellow players, including the game referee, provided that they are undertaken consciously and thoughtfully. As the original author notes however, 'persona creation' is essential to the game - the DM must do it - where as 'vicarious play' is merely a choice. And for that matter, there is nothing inherently superior to playing a 'role-playing game' and playing a tactical wargame with only minimal role-playing elements. If you want to dispense with this role-playing nonsense entirely because you don't think it is for you, then whom am I to judge. Have fun with that. [/QUOTE]

Verification