Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 3930419" data-attributes="member: 3192">IMO, roleplaying, i.e. acting in character, works better when one doesn't have rules to arbitrarily constrain thinking.&nbsp; It's tough enough for actors to get into their parts, do they need to all follow one methodology too?&nbsp; Rules are there &quot;behind the screen&quot; for the Referee.&nbsp; They allow the ref to run a credible world.&nbsp; That's it.&nbsp; I don't understand why anyone would think make-believe isn't what RPGs are, but with a credible, perceivable, understandable world to explore.&nbsp; One the DM is doing their best to portray.Roleplaying your character is a challenge to you, me, and even Marlon Brando.&nbsp; Combat is too if we act it out.&nbsp; But we're not.&nbsp; So what isn't acted out at the table isn't a player-focused challenge.&nbsp; Of course LARPs can and do challenge our physical capabilities.This doesn't mean &quot;roleplaying&quot; cannot be abstracted in a game.&nbsp; It just seems a little disingenuous to think any abstraction of it should be de facto in a roleplaying game.&nbsp; Much less making those abstractions obstructions to it.&nbsp; (as we see in 3e, some 3rd party d20, and possibly the new 4e options).What gets abstracted in RPGs is what we cannot do in real life.&nbsp; That's the fun part of RPGs (and the real point too IMO as everything else is better in real life).&nbsp; If you have a player acting as best he or she can to be smart, funny, hip, whatever, and yet failing, have the world react to them as if they succeeded.&nbsp; At least their trying.&nbsp; And getting better for the practice.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="howandwhy99, post: 3930419, member: 3192"] IMO, roleplaying, i.e. acting in character, works better when one doesn't have rules to arbitrarily constrain thinking. It's tough enough for actors to get into their parts, do they need to all follow one methodology too? Rules are there "behind the screen" for the Referee. They allow the ref to run a credible world. That's it. I don't understand why anyone would think make-believe isn't what RPGs are, but with a credible, perceivable, understandable world to explore. One the DM is doing their best to portray. Roleplaying your character is a challenge to you, me, and even Marlon Brando. Combat is too if we act it out. But we're not. So what isn't acted out at the table isn't a player-focused challenge. Of course LARPs can and do challenge our physical capabilities. This doesn't mean "roleplaying" cannot be abstracted in a game. It just seems a little disingenuous to think any abstraction of it should be de facto in a roleplaying game. Much less making those abstractions obstructions to it. (as we see in 3e, some 3rd party d20, and possibly the new 4e options). What gets abstracted in RPGs is what we cannot do in real life. That's the fun part of RPGs (and the real point too IMO as everything else is better in real life). If you have a player acting as best he or she can to be smart, funny, hip, whatever, and yet failing, have the world react to them as if they succeeded. At least their trying. And getting better for the practice. [/QUOTE]

Verification