Flavor Mish-mash and favored classes (what 4e got wrong)

[xechnao]

Interesting perspective Xechnao, but I don't understand how roleplaying suddenly slams into an impasse when it comes to playing a different race? Or have I misunderstood you?

(I must also take exception to your example here. I don't sit at the table and socialise with my *players* as if I was the sadistic barbarian overlord of the Bloodreaver's slave pits... I socalise with their *characters*... and by socialise I mean cackle with glee as I smash their heads in...)

We all understand (I would think) that every bit of imagining we ever do is just an extension of our own little bubble of experience, from the mundane (I wonder what it would be like to be eating an ice-cream out in the sun right now?) to the fantastic (I wonder what it would be like to hold terrible dominion over a world subjugated to the whim of my magic?). Some dreams are less interesting than others, probably, but all of them can teach us something.

I am just saying that people are not really roleplaying different races in D&D. Players can only be themselves in the situation the game's fluff and their gaming group's dynamics put them into. Having the powers that the "elf" kit and their "class" kit provides does not mean that you can get to be like an elf as intended by the fluff of the game world. So the problematic.

 

[xechnao]

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say.

That being the draw for some people does not make non-humans as PC races an invalid roleplaying consideration for others.

But I fail to see any different consideration than this one in D&D. You really do not need D&D to study the physiology and psychology of wolves or dragons or plants or gelationous cubes. Let aside the fictional nature of some of these creatures which makes it unreasonable -unless what you are after is to play something like "spore". But D&D is a game of different focus (assuming the role of an adventurer etch) and most importantly of a different nature (social game: made to build gameplay on the social dynamics of the group)

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

Players can only be themselves in the situation the game's fluff and their gaming group's dynamics put them into.

So you can never choose to be your own unique character but can only take a role presented to you? (I'm sorry if I'm misinterpreting what you mean.)

 

[xechnao]

So you can never choose to be your own unique character but can only take a role presented to you? (I'm sorry if I'm misinterpreting what you mean.)

No. I am saying that an unbreakable and unavoidable part of the unique character you are roleplaying is yourself since this is a social game and you have to put yourself in the social group.

This means that you can not roleplay "something" that is different, that has a different nature of yourself. Unless you roleplay certain parts of the nature of this "something" that can relate to you. The dramatics we were talking about before.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

But I fail to see any different consideration than this one in D&D. You really do not need D&D to study the physiology and psychology of wolves or dragons or plants or gelationous cubes. Let aside the fictional nature of some of these creatures which makes it unreasonable -unless what you are after is to play something like "spore".

But what other than roleplaying allows you to go inside a creature and see what they are like from the inside? To not just see them do what they do but to get into their mind by having to be the one acting like them.

You seem to be saying it is impossible for a person to play something that they are not. But isn't the entire point of a roleplaying game to play a character that one is not?

But D&D is a game of different focus (assuming the role of an adventurer etch) and most importantly of a different nature (social game: made to build gameplay on the social dynamics of the group)

How does playing a non-human detract from this (assuming it is not a personal preference of the group)?

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

No. I am saying that an unbreakable and unavoidable part of the unique character you are roleplaying is yourself since this is a social game and you have to put yourself in the social group.

And for some of us trying not to be our human selves is part of being ourself.

This means that you can not roleplay "something" that is different, that has a different nature of yourself. Unless you roleplay certain parts of the nature of this "something" that can relate to you. The dramatics we were talking about before.

What do you mean by this? People can't roleplaying things that they aren't in some way? Isn't the point to try?

 

[xechnao]

But what other than roleplaying allows you to go inside a creature and see what they are like from the inside? To not just see them do what they do but to get into their mind by having to be the one acting like them.

No roleplaying game does this really IMO.

You seem to be saying it is impossible for a person to play something that they are not. But isn't the entire point of a roleplaying game to play a character that one is not?

You assume roles with your time-for example someone who is in the middle of a combat trying to kill monsters or save his friends. And the game rules direct-guide you here. For example if you die you are out of the game -the game ends.

How does playing a non-human detract from this (assuming it is not a personal preference of the group)?

See post above.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

No roleplaying game does this really IMO.

You assume roles with your time-for example someone who is in the middle of a combat trying to kill monsters or save his friends. And the game rules direct-guide you here. For example if you die you are out of the game -the game ends.

See post above.

So you're arguing that roleplaying should be subordinate to the rules of the game?

 

[xechnao]

And for some of us trying not to be our human selves is part of being ourself.

What you can do with this is roleplay a character that does this: tries to act like someone else.

What do you mean by this? People can't roleplaying things that they aren't in some way? Isn't the point to try?

No, the point is not to try to do things that are not feasible. The point is to be with your friends in an exciting situation: the fact that you live this situation along with them.

So you're arguing that roleplaying should be subordinate to the rules of the game?

The rules of the game and roleplaying work together.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

What you can do with this is roleplay a character that does this: tries to act like someone else.

I'm not talking about acting like a person who tries to act like someone else, I'm saying that I, the player, want to be someone/something else.

No, the point is not to try to do things that are not feasible.

Not feasible how?

The point is to be with your friends in an exciting situation: the fact that you live this situation along with them.

You're arguing a playstyle preference. You can like that all your want, no one's going to (or they shouldn't, at any rate) tell you that you cannot like that style. I'm just trying to say that there are valid reasons why others prefer a different style.

The rules of the game and roleplaying work together.

But if they come into conflict which do you choose to follow?