Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="seasong" data-source="post: 750703" data-attributes="member: 5137">I don't think you need to defend yourself against those views, however. When I was very young, I used to allow players to build whatever whacked-out character concept they had, and prided myself on being able to bring them into the story anyway. I was very good at it, and very impressed with myself.However, after proving I could do it, I found that it was better not to. The story improves immensely when it is allowed to focus itself, and while I can do a good story without restrictions, I can do a BETTER one with restrictions.Just morbid curiousity, really, but is that including San Francisco and whatever that Boston women's college is? <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=";)" />Hahahahahaha! Of course, you forgot the correllary to that: "Gamers can't play warriors; they can only play warrior impersonators."I mean, really, Teflon Billy's a good guy, but sometimes he's a bit inflammatory. The above is why it's called ROLEPLAYING and not POLYMORPH SELF.There are other, more powerful factors involved. More likely, you treat them like human beings and cater to their preferences as roleplayers.</blockquote>