Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 5298420" data-attributes="member: 80487">To me this at first suggests that, in this context, combat and role-playing are mutually exclusive. Role-playing is a strictly non-combat activity.At the end, though, it appears to make a &quot;mechanical sde&quot; and role-playing mutually exclusive.This suggests that having some amount of information on a character sheet is synonymous with &quot;fighting endless hordes of mooks&quot;.That is most definitely, as a matter of fact, not so. I know this from first-hand experience.The general sentiment could still reflect what &quot;roleplaying&quot; means in the Dungeon Magazine context.This suggests to me that a player making &quot;mutterings or paranoid looks&quot; is a manifestation of roleplaying, whereas a less theatrical treatment of the effects of insanity upon the character in the game is not. However, it could be that Klaus overlooked the actual effect of the Sanity rules in CoC.This appears to disagree with Verdande's post.This again suggests a &quot;theatrical&quot; meaning.&quot;The quality of his backstory&quot; is here an element of role-playing.I take &quot;describing actions&quot; for granted as the way one plays an RPG. It is curious to me to think of &quot;I attack.&nbsp; I got a 15.&quot; or &quot;I'll use Diplomacy on him. I got a 22.&quot; as valid moves except as following and assuming circumstances already established.To adapt a phrase, in D&amp;D, &quot;player proposes, referee disposes&quot;. From the player's side, it is a game of limited information. Only the referee is in a position to say whether an input is sufficient or even relevant, because only the referee knows the factors with which it interacts.So, as I said, I simply assume it as a practical fundamental in playing the game.What I see here suggests to me again the &quot;theatrical&quot; meaning of role-playing.Yelling at the table is discouraged in my group. Would it be -- by the applicable definition here -- role-playing simply to relate that the character yells certain words?How about to relate, in one's own words, the gist of the communication?See, there is a difference between &quot;describing actions&quot; and &quot;putting on a performance&quot;.Further, there is a difference between demanding a description because it is actually essential to the game -- as when, in old D&amp;D, I must describe the offer I make to a being I am trying to recruit, or how I treat my henchmen afterward -- and demanding it as something tacked on, a sort of decorative frill.The former is more related to a &quot;role assumption&quot; or &quot;in those shoes&quot; or &quot;you are there&quot; meaning of role-playing, in which the emphasis is on how one approaches the imagined world.How about a puzzled cleric?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ariosto, post: 5298420, member: 80487"] To me this at first suggests that, in this context, combat and role-playing are mutually exclusive. Role-playing is a strictly non-combat activity. At the end, though, it appears to make a "mechanical sde" and role-playing mutually exclusive. This suggests that having some amount of information on a character sheet is synonymous with "fighting endless hordes of mooks". That is most definitely, as a matter of fact, not so. I know this from first-hand experience. The general sentiment could still reflect what "roleplaying" means in the Dungeon Magazine context. This suggests to me that a [i]player[/i] making "mutterings or paranoid looks" is a manifestation of roleplaying, whereas a less theatrical treatment of the effects of insanity upon the [i]character[/i] in the game is not. However, it could be that Klaus overlooked the actual effect of the Sanity rules in CoC. This appears to disagree with Verdande's post. This again suggests a "theatrical" meaning. "The quality of his backstory" is here an element of role-playing. I take "describing actions" for granted as the way one plays an RPG. It is curious to me to think of "I attack. I got a 15." or "I'll use Diplomacy on him. I got a 22." as valid moves except as following and assuming circumstances already established. To adapt a phrase, in D&D, "player proposes, referee disposes". From the player's side, it is a game of limited information. Only the referee is in a position to say whether an input is sufficient or even relevant, because only the referee knows the factors with which it interacts. So, as I said, I simply assume it as a practical fundamental in playing the game. What I see here suggests to me again the "theatrical" meaning of role-playing. Yelling at the table is discouraged in my group. Would it be -- by the applicable definition here -- role-playing simply to relate that the character yells certain words? How about to relate, in one's own words, the gist of the communication? See, there is a difference between "describing actions" and "putting on a performance". Further, there is a difference between demanding a description because it is actually essential to the game -- as when, in old D&D, I must describe the offer I make to a being I am trying to recruit, or how I treat my henchmen afterward -- and demanding it as something tacked on, a sort of decorative frill. The former is more related to a "role assumption" or "in those shoes" or "you are there" meaning of role-playing, in which the emphasis is on how one approaches the imagined world. How about a puzzled cleric? [/QUOTE]

Verification