Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Clint_L" data-source="post: 9050171" data-attributes="member: 7035894">This is an unworkable definition of role-playing. It is exactly like an actor claiming “I am acting as a prohibition era gangster, so whatever choices I make are by definition in character as a prohibition era gangster. So don’t tell me my surfer accent, fidget spinner, and Starbucks cup are out of character, Mr. Critic.” It’s a circular argument, assuming its premise as a conclusion. It has no meaning.For example, what is to stop the player from sitting there with a copy of the adventure and reading out what happens next to everyone? By that definition, they are just acting in character. As long as they say the magic words “this is in character,” anything goes. A definition that includes anything means nothing.I think this “definition” only works if you are playing DnD as a war game and trying to win, not playing it as a TTRPG. ie if the story is irrelevant. But for us, the story is the whole point.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Clint_L, post: 9050171, member: 7035894"] This is an unworkable definition of role-playing. It is exactly like an actor claiming “I am acting as a prohibition era gangster, so whatever choices I make are by definition in character as a prohibition era gangster. So don’t tell me my surfer accent, fidget spinner, and Starbucks cup are out of character, Mr. Critic.” It’s a circular argument, assuming its premise as a conclusion. It has no meaning. For example, what is to stop the player from sitting there with a copy of the adventure and reading out what happens next to everyone? By that definition, they are just acting in character. As long as they say the magic words “this is in character,” anything goes. A definition that includes anything means nothing. I think this “definition” only works if you are playing DnD as a war game and trying to win, not playing it as a TTRPG. ie if the story is irrelevant. But for us, the story is the whole point. [/QUOTE]

Verification