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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Greenfield" data-source="post: 5651941" data-attributes="member: 6669384">Same position since page 4?Also...So at that point you were pretty solidly fixed on the idea that the "role" was the class, and the slot you filled in the party.  Igor Thud wasn't the role you played, but rather "fighter" was the role that Igor played.That was post 54 in the thread.  You continued on this line in post 57 (also on Page 4).  Then, in an edit to that post...That was your first change in direction, when you posted something that agreed with what I'd said.I even said so in post 63, Page 5:Then in post 69 you reversed field again.So you were now backing away from "playing a character who is part of a story", and returning to filling a slot in a party.In post 71 you started comparing D&D to 1st person shooters, and concluded that the difference is in how the story is presented to the player, as opposed me thinking that it's how the player contributed to the story.In post 76 I said...At which point you went back to arguing that class selection was the key factor, since mechanically the game required classes.  That was post 77, so now you're solidly back to arguing the slot in the team, the character class, rather than the character.After that I took an admitedly mocking tone, asking if we might be playing the dice, since they were also required, before pointing out that there are many systems that are skill and/or point based, and use neither classes nor levels.In post 81, you then said...Now you're going back to saying that you're playing a character in a story, a 180 degree shift from your most recent posts.  This is also where you began to bring in Myst, which is best described as a 1st-person non-shooter game.The simple fact is, even as you disavow claiming that the "role" is the slot in the team, you reverse field and defend that stance every time it comes up.Look at post 85, if you need to see more of that in your own words.After that it came down to mincing words.  You were determined not to be in agreement with me, so you picked at me referring to the character as a "persona" that you played.  (Post 91, Page 7).You muddied the field a bit when you argued that you're playing a game piece, but then qualified that as to which game piece you could or couldn't play.  Again I took a mocking tone in my response, which I probably shouldn't have.  But the replies from others made it pretty clear that I wasn't the only one who thought your position was, at the very least, poorly expressed.  (See posts 94 and 95).  It also inspired some nice grapics (thanks Dandu and Kitcik).Over all you've fluttered back and forth between two positions, and appeared to delve into a third, at least in what you've written.  Maybe you intended a more constant presentation, but you haven't actually done that.My position?  Pretty much the same as it's always been.  I think that role playing means to play a role, like a character in a book or play, with the distinction being that you are also the author of your own dialogue, and a contributing author to the story itself.If you agree with this then we're done.  If you have another view, please state it clearly, and we'll proceed from there.  But no matter what else, let's try to proceed civilly. I'll try to cut out the mocking tone if you'll stop the insults.  Deal?</blockquote>

Verification