Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Deset Gled" data-source="post: 9789428" data-attributes="member: 7808">I think that definition is good enough.&nbsp; However, I disagree with the premise &quot;I know the best strategy, but my character wouldn't do that.&quot;&nbsp; I generally don't play board games that have an absolute &quot;best&quot; strategy.&nbsp; A game where there is only one &quot;best&quot; move gets pretty boring pretty fast. When I'm talking about roleplaying with board games, I talking about roleplaying the decisions that do not have a single &quot;best&quot; answer.&nbsp; In games with a social aspect (which is most of them), this involves how your character interacts with other people.&nbsp; In games with strategic decisions, this involves thinking about how your character would plan for different scenarios.&nbsp; And in games with a randomization factor, this involves how your character reacts, and how they handle different risks.&nbsp; These are all cases where there are a spectrum of &quot;good&quot; choices, not one &quot;best&quot; one.&nbsp; Also, it should be understood that this is talking about things on a large scale; there may be individual small choices where there is an obvious best choice, but those aren't the ones worth thinking about.I should also say that I would expect people to play competently even when they're roleplaying.&nbsp; In any game, whether it's a TTRPG or a board game, playing solely to be disruptive and actively refusing the goals of the game is the mark of a problem player.&nbsp; In all of the examples that I gave earlier, roleplaying players should still be trying to win.&nbsp; Even the person roleplaying as Greenland may have been making some unorthodox decisions, but they were still playing the game for real (e.g. planning card use properly, etc).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Deset Gled, post: 9789428, member: 7808"] I think that definition is good enough. However, I disagree with the premise "I know the best strategy, but my character wouldn't [I]do[/I] that." I generally don't play board games that have an absolute "best" strategy. A game where there is only one "best" move gets pretty boring pretty fast. When I'm talking about roleplaying with board games, I talking about roleplaying the decisions that do not have a single "best" answer. In games with a social aspect (which is most of them), this involves how your character interacts with other people. In games with strategic decisions, this involves thinking about how your character would plan for different scenarios. And in games with a randomization factor, this involves how your character reacts, and how they handle different risks. These are all cases where there are a spectrum of "good" choices, not one "best" one. Also, it should be understood that this is talking about things on a large scale; there may be individual small choices where there is an obvious best choice, but those aren't the ones worth thinking about. I should also say that I would expect people to play competently even when they're roleplaying. In any game, whether it's a TTRPG or a board game, playing solely to be disruptive and actively refusing the goals of the game is the mark of a problem player. In all of the examples that I gave earlier, roleplaying players should still be trying to win. Even the person roleplaying as Greenland may have been making some unorthodox decisions, but they were still playing the game for real (e.g. planning card use properly, etc). [/QUOTE]

Verification