Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6745047" data-attributes="member: 42582">It is not true that this contract that you will play a character that has whatever traits you label the character with, however you label the character, is inherent in roleplaying. That's the point of the Edwards passage, in distinguishing two different approaches to RPGing.From Burning Wheel (rev ed), pp 56-57:[By] stating a Belief . . . you are letting other players know you want situations revolving around that theme . . . You might not even succeed, but playing out that struggle is what the game is all about.

Beliefs are meant to be conflicted, challenged, betrayed and broken. Such emotional drama makes for a good game. . . .

A player may change his character's Beliefs as he sees fit. Characters are meant to grow and change through play. Changing Beliefs is a vital part of that growth. However, . . . if [the GM] feels the player is changing a Belief to wriggle out of a difficult situation and not as part of character growth, he may delay the change until a time that he sees as appropriate.The point of these character traits is not to constrain the players' play of their PCs, but to signal the sorts of situations that the players wants the GM to frame their PCs into.This also relates to the point about stress. The whole point of play in the narrativist/&quot;Sorcerer&quot; style is for the GM to frame the PCs into situations which will stress their beliefs and will oblige them to change. If the player asks &quot;What would the character do?&quot;, there should be no answer that can simply be read off the character's traits - if there is such an answer, the GM hasn't done his/her job properly. Which isn't to say that the character is asking &quot;What would I do?&quot; Rather, by choosing what the character does do the player is shaping the character's traits; which is the reverse of the causal sequence posited in what Edwards calls the simulationist/&quot;GURPS&quot; style.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6745047, member: 42582"] It is not true that [I]this contract that you will play a character that has whatever traits you label the character with, however you label the character, is inherent in roleplaying[/I]. That's the point of the Edwards passage, in distinguishing two different approaches to RPGing. From Burning Wheel (rev ed), pp 56-57: [indent][By] stating a Belief . . . you are letting other players know you want situations revolving around that theme . . . You might not even succeed, but playing out that struggle is what the game is all about. Beliefs are meant to be conflicted, challenged, betrayed and broken. Such emotional drama makes for a good game. . . . A player may change his character's Beliefs as he sees fit. Characters are meant to grow and change through play. Changing Beliefs is a vital part of that growth. However, . . . if [the GM] feels the player is changing a Belief to wriggle out of a difficult situation and not as part of character growth, he may delay the change until a time that he sees as appropriate.[/indent] The point of these character traits is not to constrain the players' play of their PCs, but to signal the sorts of situations that the players wants the GM to frame their PCs into. This also relates to the point about [I]stress[/I]. The whole point of play in the narrativist/"Sorcerer" style is for the GM to frame the PCs into situations which [I]will[/I] stress their beliefs and [I]will[/I] oblige them to change. If the player asks "What would the character do?", there should be no answer that can simply be read off the character's traits - if there is such an answer, the GM hasn't done his/her job properly. Which isn't to say that the character is asking "What would I do?" Rather, by choosing what the character does do the player is shaping the character's traits; which is the reverse of the causal sequence posited in what Edwards calls the simulationist/"GURPS" style. [/QUOTE]

Verification