Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Meridian" data-source="post: 493705" data-attributes="member: 1603">There was a time when I was gaming with one particular group of people that didn't like to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of individual players.&nbsp; Some players were very sensitive about being placed on a scale of measurement or aptitude for a pasttime; they wanted no comparisons of &quot;better&quot; or &quot;worse&quot; to enter into the picture.&nbsp; This didn't make it easy for someone who didn't consider themselves very accomplished in most other areas of skill and talent, but seemed to excel as a role-player.In a stand-alone situation, I consider myself an excellent role-player, which is not synonomous with being a good gamer.&nbsp; IMHO, a good gamer is someone who has achieved enough of a mastery of one or more gaming systems to make a positive contribution in facilitating smooth game play for his gaming group within the appropriate parameters of being a player.Now that I'm gaming with people who accept the idea of &quot;quality of role-playing,&quot; I can say that I definitely am a role-player of skill.&nbsp; I have been told by those who have been moved to do so that my role-playing is always entertaining and interesting.&nbsp; The characters I play are three-dimensional personas who advance the story merely by their participation, because they are built to be a part of the setting and at the same time to stand apart from the average populace of the setting.&nbsp; I play off the portrayals of other characters, PCs and NPCs alike.&nbsp; I don't metagame, and I always try to work within the story.&nbsp; My character is as ignorant or as knowledgeable about the setting as the GM wants him to be.&nbsp; I am not a good gamer.&nbsp; I am far less interested in rules than in setting, story, and character.&nbsp; I don't go out of my way to be contentious, but I don't avoid confrontation in my constant attempts to improve the consistency of quality of a campaign or the participation of a group of players in said campaign, either.&nbsp; I'm pretty selfish in that I feel that if I'm investing my valuable time in a collective endeavor for mutual entertainment, I have a say in indicating how the endeavor can be entertaining for *me*.&nbsp; I have more fun playing with a group of prima donnas like myself rather than a mixture of gaming styles; I feel less alienated that way. If the rules get in the way of role-playing, whether in general or for one specific action, I'm invariably unhappy.&nbsp; I don't just &quot;go along&quot; with the premise if it doesn't make sense for my character to do so.In conclusion, I suppose I round out to be an &quot;average&quot; player, all things considered.&nbsp; I fit very well into some gaming groups, and would be toxic for others.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Meridian, post: 493705, member: 1603"] There was a time when I was gaming with one particular group of people that didn't like to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of individual players. Some players were very sensitive about being placed on a scale of measurement or aptitude for a pasttime; they wanted no comparisons of "better" or "worse" to enter into the picture. This didn't make it easy for someone who didn't consider themselves very accomplished in most other areas of skill and talent, but seemed to excel as a role-player. In a stand-alone situation, I consider myself an excellent role-player, which is not synonomous with being a good gamer. IMHO, a good gamer is someone who has achieved enough of a mastery of one or more gaming systems to make a positive contribution in facilitating smooth game play for his gaming group within the appropriate parameters of being a player. Now that I'm gaming with people who accept the idea of "quality of role-playing," I can say that I definitely am a role-player of skill. I have been told by those who have been moved to do so that my role-playing is always entertaining and interesting. The characters I play are three-dimensional personas who advance the story merely by their participation, because they are built to be a part of the setting and at the same time to stand apart from the average populace of the setting. I play off the portrayals of other characters, PCs and NPCs alike. I don't metagame, and I always try to work within the story. My character is as ignorant or as knowledgeable about the setting as the GM wants him to be. I am not a good gamer. I am far less interested in rules than in setting, story, and character. I don't go out of my way to be contentious, but I don't avoid confrontation in my constant attempts to improve the consistency of quality of a campaign or the participation of a group of players in said campaign, either. I'm pretty selfish in that I feel that if I'm investing my valuable time in a collective endeavor for mutual entertainment, I have a say in indicating how the endeavor can be entertaining for *me*. I have more fun playing with a group of prima donnas like myself rather than a mixture of gaming styles; I feel less alienated that way. If the rules get in the way of role-playing, whether in general or for one specific action, I'm invariably unhappy. I don't just "go along" with the premise if it doesn't make sense for my character to do so. In conclusion, I suppose I round out to be an "average" player, all things considered. I fit very well into some gaming groups, and would be toxic for others. [/QUOTE]

Verification