Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cadfan" data-source="post: 4838547" data-attributes="member: 40961">1. There are two general issues.&nbsp; The first is that some people believe that its easier to invest in a character, and therefore to roleplay it, if that character has some staying power.&nbsp; If that character is likely to die easily, then it won't have staying power and you won't have time to grow attached, develop a rich personality, and roleplay well.&nbsp; The second issue is that some people believe that if you spend a lot of time fighting, you must not be spending a lot of time roleplaying.&nbsp; I generally believe the first assertion.&nbsp; The second is more questionable... to a certain extent I agree that there is perhaps more roleplaying when you do not have the pressure of making intelligent decisions with the aim of winning a battle.&nbsp; Without that pressure you can afford to goof off a bit more, with it your options are a little more constrained.&nbsp; So to that extent I agree, but I don't think that argument goes very far.&nbsp;2. There's a difference between combat lethality and game lethality.&nbsp; D&amp;D, for example, tends to assume cheap, easy resurrection.&nbsp; That gives you combat lethality without the game itself having lethality.&nbsp; In that environment you might die in a battle, but if you just pop back up afterwards it doesn't really matter in terms of preventing you from growing attached to your character.&nbsp;3. Other games can have very lethal combat but plenty of roleplaying if the combat isn't a major focus of the gameplay.&nbsp; Og: Unearthed, for example, has extremely simple rules for combat.&nbsp; You basically just roll a d6, see if it beats a certain number, and start checking off hit points.&nbsp; You only have a few hit points.&nbsp; But combat isn't really the point of the game, its more a punishment for failing at the real purpose: communication of complex ideas through grunts, sign language, and two or three not particularly useful words.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cadfan, post: 4838547, member: 40961"] 1. There are two general issues. The first is that some people believe that its easier to invest in a character, and therefore to roleplay it, if that character has some staying power. If that character is likely to die easily, then it won't have staying power and you won't have time to grow attached, develop a rich personality, and roleplay well. The second issue is that some people believe that if you spend a lot of time fighting, you must not be spending a lot of time roleplaying. I generally believe the first assertion. The second is more questionable... to a certain extent I agree that there is perhaps more roleplaying when you do not have the pressure of making intelligent decisions with the aim of winning a battle. Without that pressure you can afford to goof off a bit more, with it your options are a little more constrained. So to that extent I agree, but I don't think that argument goes very far. 2. There's a difference between combat lethality and game lethality. D&D, for example, tends to assume cheap, easy resurrection. That gives you combat lethality without the game itself having lethality. In that environment you might die in a battle, but if you just pop back up afterwards it doesn't really matter in terms of preventing you from growing attached to your character. 3. Other games can have very lethal combat but plenty of roleplaying if the combat isn't a major focus of the gameplay. Og: Unearthed, for example, has extremely simple rules for combat. You basically just roll a d6, see if it beats a certain number, and start checking off hit points. You only have a few hit points. But combat isn't really the point of the game, its more a punishment for failing at the real purpose: communication of complex ideas through grunts, sign language, and two or three not particularly useful words. [/QUOTE]

Verification