Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8957860" data-attributes="member: 29398">Obviously.&nbsp; But in the scenario presented it did fail, and now I-as-revolutionary have to square with that.&nbsp; I mean, I suppose I could just go and throw myself on the king's justice (and thus at the meta-level almost certainly roleplay my PC out of the game either through it being executed or having to serve a lengthy jail sentence).&nbsp; Or, I could go and hide somewhere and bemoan my sorry fate until the cows come home (meta: great for the dramatic roleplay side but not very group-oriented and boring as hell after the first ten minutes).&nbsp; Or, I could find a way to gather a group around myself and set off for faraway lands; and after we adventure our little faces off over there and get stinkin' rich in the process, come back and try this revolution business again (meta: provide both the DM and the other players with something to grab for out of this failed revolution story).Or the character has great emotional connection and is roleplayed as burying that emotion deep; wich from the outside observer's view would produce about the same characterizations as a result.It tells me a lot about the nature of the stakes and how to approach them: if the stakes are a mere setback for the character, that's considerably less to worry about than if the stakes are an outright failure and-or inability for that character's career to continue.And in this you are correct, in that the primary goals being pursued are those of the party as a whole (which in party play strikes me as being the point of the exercise anyway).&nbsp; If all a player cares about is the goals etc. of an individual character, why play in a party-based game or system?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 8957860, member: 29398"] Obviously. But in the scenario presented it [B]did[/B] fail, and now I-as-revolutionary have to square with that. I mean, I suppose I could just go and throw myself on the king's justice (and thus at the meta-level almost certainly roleplay my PC out of the game either through it being executed or having to serve a lengthy jail sentence). Or, I could go and hide somewhere and bemoan my sorry fate until the cows come home (meta: great for the dramatic roleplay side but not very group-oriented and boring as hell after the first ten minutes). Or, I could find a way to gather a group around myself and set off for faraway lands; and after we adventure our little faces off over there and get stinkin' rich in the process, come back and try this revolution business again (meta: provide both the DM and the other players with something to grab for out of this failed revolution story). Or the character has great emotional connection and is roleplayed as burying that emotion deep; wich from the outside observer's view would produce about the same characterizations as a result. It tells me a lot about the nature of the stakes and how to approach them: if the stakes are a mere setback for the character, that's considerably less to worry about than if the stakes are an outright failure and-or inability for that character's career to continue. And in this you are correct, in that the primary goals being pursued [I]are those of the party as a whole[/I] (which in party play strikes me as being the point of the exercise anyway). If all a player cares about is the goals etc. of an individual character, why play in a party-based game or system? [/QUOTE]

Verification