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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 4452399" data-attributes="member: 710"><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> I see the term is catching on. They were a great disconnect for me at first, though I quickly got over it. And these days, I appreciate such abstractions. Of course, if I was to make my own perfect RPG system (and who active gamer doesn't sometimes want to do that?), I would try something else. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Classes tend to define who you are in that world. They give "hints" on what or who you are. It's interesting how differently roles can be defined or understood in context of RPGs.I remember reading a citation from Gary Gygax in the context of rewarding XP for role-playing - he seemed to closely associate roles and classes, and that playing a cowardly fighter or a cleric unwilling to heal his comrades should be "punished" with less XP. Which is certainly not how many other people would understand role-playing. A coward fighter or a priest unwilling to use his faith to the benefit of unbelievers would certainly not be associated with "bad role-playing" by some. It seemed as if Gary focused more on the "role in the party" then "role in the world" when he refered to role-playing, and regardless of whether you agree with him (or my description of his stance) or not - this sure has always been a certain conflict/confusion in the definition of what role-playing or what the "role" in role-playing games means.This might also be a difference in the "GNS" debate.Gamist might say "role-playing refers to the role I play in the party/game"Simulationist might say "role refers to the role or kind of person I play in the RPG world"Narrativist might say "role refers to my characters place in the story of the game".The difference between "Sim" and "Narr" might seem an artifical one here  - if you're in the world, you're also in the story, and your role relates to both. The difference is certainly subtle and might be superficial. The "story" approach concludes a certain element of predetermination in what kind of stories and situations the PC will find himself, and where his experiences will lead him.The "world" creates the background and motivations of the character (not that of the player) and sees how he will react to any situation handed to him. There is always a lot of overlap - if I am playing a Fighter, I can assume that my role in the party is to, well, fight. In the context of the world, I will be seen as a man that uses weapons and violence, and will be able to cope best with combat situations. In the story, I will be the one that will be involved in a lot of combat and will lead any battles that are to be fought.</blockquote>

Verification