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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The-Magic-Sword" data-source="post: 9175598" data-attributes="member: 6801252">I think I'd say that yeahRoleplayability = The ability for someone to roleplay this concept. Appeal = Your desire to roleplay this concept. Optimizing = The spectrum of how strong you make your character, in terms of the choices available. It would be weird to me to call your buddy's character that they're currently roleplaying "un-roleplayable" because you wouldn't want to roleplay it, you could use it to say how much you dislike the idea of playing the concept, but it would take on a dimension of hyperbole. You seem to be bridging the gap via making roleplayability a matter of individual subjectivity, so the answer can only be relative, which would suggest that if you can find someone willing to say it of a concept, it would be in some sense true. But I'd instead propose a 'roleplayability' test, as a thought experiment, the game itself is to roleplay a given prompt to the best of your ability, with good-faith attempt assumed, and each participant receiving a score of 0 if nothing happened or what they roleplayed didn't pertain to the prompt, and a 1 if they did roleplay, and it pertained to the prompt, with each participant's goal being to get as many points as possible over multiple prompts. You would find that someone would be able to successfully earn a point on most prompts, demonstrating an objective ability to roleplay it.When I was discussing the appeal of balanced games, it was me explaining why I like them as a solution to this problem. In my experience, games that aren't well-balanced not only require the participants to play under a gentleman's agreement to not produce bad feeling, they also require a high enough level of system mastery to not violate that gentleman's agreement by deciding to play Legolas and accidentally making an optimized archer by taking Elf + Sharpshooter. But obviously, you can roleplay a legolas-type-- similarly, a game can be designed to make optimization moot entirely, such that it doesn't make sense to discuss the relative level of power afforded by each setup, and be good at roleplaying, but that's distinct from the perception of a causal relationship the Stormwind Fallacy rejects. I would point out that ars magica isn't a better roleplaying game because it's a terrible optimizers game, like I'm not sure many people would say that Mage the Awakening is a worse roleplayer game for being a better optimizer game in the same vein, I certainly wouldn't.</blockquote>

Verification