Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 7649417" data-attributes="member: 3192">This gets into some of the main differences between early role playing and contemporary beliefs about role playing. Early on the statistical scores were abilities. Ability Scores. They defined what you could do in the game as a player. Now all elements are seen more as characterizations, attributes defining a personality the player is understood to portray. The point and focus of play and the game have changed for many. They are not seeking to implement the abilities they have in the game, but rather to see the whole of it as a personality they are to embody. If I had a low Charisma score, it meant I was at a mechanical disadvantage for befriending others. Now it often means the player should portray my character as someone who has difficulty befriending others. I think it's possible to design for both, but game objectives should be made clear to the players. Not everyone at the table may or even should be thinking in terms of character. Players of the earlier style would never suffer a conflict about what they want to do rather than what their character wants to do because they aren't portraying a character, but rather playing the situation as a game. Later styles aren't about social role play, but character role play and seek a constant division between "in the situation" acting and authoring like a writer.</blockquote>