Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6728144" data-attributes="member: 6681948">If you find people who are emotionally impacted by the "danger" the King is in because they are placing themselves in the shoes of the King, I suppose so.  Now, if you also then decide your King panics and makes a less than optimal move as a consequence (rather than YOU panicking about the prospect of losing the game and moving the king in a less than optimal manner), then we're getting into a role playing game.  But chess is not designed as an RPG.In most games as in "classic board games", when the player loses, he is out of the game until a new game begins.  D&D does not have to end for me to play again - the game continues and I rejoin it.Actually, a heroic death in D&D (or a very much in character and meaningful death) can be a marvelous capstone to a character's career.  Insipidly creeping along making "the best tactical choice in each situation" is infinitely worse.  In chess, there is no such thing as a "heroic death", though, as there is no personality to the playing pieces, and no sentimental attachment to them.Playing within the character's personality and style is a challenge I embrace.  If that means his tactics are not as sound (or at least not the same) as my own, so be it.  I've enjoyed playing numerous characters, with numerous flaws, and seen many others enjoy the game, and create memorable gaming moments, in similar fashion.  Some that come to mind: - the character designed specifically to believe, and expound on, old wives' tales.  On his first outing, he charged an Umber Hulk.  "How, exactly, are you facing it?"  "Why, looking it straight in those four eyes (as best I can with my two), just as any TRUE warrior would - so it can see I have no fear of it!"  I knew exactly what Umber Hulks do.  I fully expected to be denied a save (my dice, however, were also role playing well and threw a '1'). - "While the rest of you search the rest of the room, I will search the featherbed - start by checking it carefully for lumps with my back!"  [There turned out to be a ghoul on the overhead canopy - but my character was a lazy smartalec, so what are you gonna do? - I've had more than one character for whom I've tracked initial and ongoing reactions to party members, and who then unconsciously make choices in combat on that basis (sure, I know the warrior doesn't need my help as much as the thief/wizard, but the thief/wizard ticks my character off and the warrior does not) - I recall a specific encounter when one character moved from "a danger to himself and others - we should kick him to the curb" to "you have a problem with him, you have a problem with me" - because that character made a pretty lousy tactical choice, but one that showed he had guts and heart. - the character is "impetuous, impulsive and impatient", so I roll willpower-type rolls (this wasn't a D&D game) if he tries to hold an action, or to avoid taking the first action that comes to mind, even if a moment's thought shows it to be sub-optimal. - the Overconfident character (not mine - I was running the game) in a Superhero game who challenged an opponent with a rep to "One on one combat - if you're brave enough".  The opponent, in game world, would never refuse such a challenge - but was also known to be more than powerful enough to challenge the whole team.  [The player insisted on making a willpower-type check to convince himself to dodge, at one point, so he could stay in the fight].  Actually, I recall the same player being asked his DCV (equates to how hard he is to hit).  He specified a low figure, and someone else called him on it.  "Well, it's really twice that - but this nobody (a completely unknown opponent to player and character) can't be a threat to ME!"  Those date back well over a decade, maybe two, and are still cited in our games.I could keep citing recollections for pages.  Those are CHARACTERS, not playing pawns.  "I never make a tactical error" characters may sometimes be appropriate, but they're not all that fun.  Can you name, say, three from fictional source material?BINGOThis is a classic dichotomy between ROLE PLAYING and "Roll Playing".  The roll player will minimize his character's drawbacks.  The Role Player embraces them.  Out of character activity because it's tactically sound is the epitome of horrible role playing.</blockquote>

Verification