Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9175447" data-attributes="member: 71699">It looks like we run into ambiguities in terms. What counts under "optimizing"? What is "roleplayability" and how is that distinct from "how much you like your character"? Is every character roleplayable for me because I could under threat of violence be made to play it, even though I might find the experience obnoxious? I'm not aiming to resolve those questions: just pointing out that the SF bundles up some ill-defined terms. "Just because" does a lot of work. I take it to have equivalence with "It is not necessarily the case", which of course I agree with. Maybe it means something else? What that draws attention to is a group of neighbouring claims about optimisation versus roleplay.I don't think it is right to say this comes out to a preference for balanced games. To some, it's moot whether the game is balanced. They're more interested in the roleplayability (to them) of the possible characters. An example I recall was Ars Magica, which I was interested in largely because of the creative space that develops from power disparity between characters and setting aside of balance in the effects of magic. Another was Stormbringer, where during character creation on a single roll, one might be handed a Grahluk or somesuch, or a Melnibonean. A terrible game for optimizers, but perfectly acceptable for roleplay.It shouldn't be contentious to say that some players focus on RPG as game, and others on RPG as narrative, and the two aren't always reconcilable. Some games are designed on the premise there is a distinction between the two! Sometimes one has to give on one to best achieve the other. They're not necessarily in conflict, and focus on one does not necessarily mean one is not also doing the other.</blockquote>

Verification