Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 9474179" data-attributes="member: 85555">I am often in disagreement with Pemerton on issues like this surrounding the AD&amp;D books, but here I have to say, playing characters as a self insert seems 1) Entirely feasible in AD&amp;D and 2) a pretty typical playstyle that has been present in the hobby since at least my first session of play in '86 (and based on what I have read and heard from people common since the early days before that too). On the 1E&nbsp; PHB and DMG, Gary isn't always consistent, so you can read that and come away with different ideas about RP. I think though that essentially playing as a self insert wouldn't be entirely out of line (I wouldn't go so far as to say it is what Gary is advocating, I just think that style very much fits with a lot of the approaches he lays out). That said, I think people are off teh mark and building a bit of a straw man when they try to blur the line between what I would do, versus what my character would do. Clearly there is an approach to play where you attempt to make decisions based on character motivation, and this is what people mean when they talk about that. Trying to say that effectively doesn't exist because your character is still under your control and not a literal separate entity seems more like a linguistic argument to undermine a very common style of play</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 9474179, member: 85555"] I am often in disagreement with Pemerton on issues like this surrounding the AD&D books, but here I have to say, playing characters as a self insert seems 1) Entirely feasible in AD&D and 2) a pretty typical playstyle that has been present in the hobby since at least my first session of play in '86 (and based on what I have read and heard from people common since the early days before that too). On the 1E PHB and DMG, Gary isn't always consistent, so you can read that and come away with different ideas about RP. I think though that essentially playing as a self insert wouldn't be entirely out of line (I wouldn't go so far as to say it is what Gary is advocating, I just think that style very much fits with a lot of the approaches he lays out). That said, I think people are off teh mark and building a bit of a straw man when they try to blur the line between what I would do, versus what my character would do. Clearly there is an approach to play where you attempt to make decisions based on character motivation, and this is what people mean when they talk about that. Trying to say that effectively doesn't exist because your character is still under your control and not a literal separate entity seems more like a linguistic argument to undermine a very common style of play [/QUOTE]

Verification