Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Xetheral" data-source="post: 8360322" data-attributes="member: 6802765">I'm also fine with third person, so apparently I don't understand the definition of play-acting as you're using it. You're not using it in the demeaning put-down context with which I am familiar, and evidently you're not using it as a synonym for roleplaying as I came to think you were. Could you please try to clarify what the term play-acting means to you, and how it you see it as differing from roleplaying?To clarify my own language, the part of D&amp;D that I've mentioned trying to emphasize (and that I thought you were dismissing) is interacting with the game world (including NPCs, other PCs, and the environment) from the perspective of one's character. From my perspective you seemed to only care about such interaction when it was tied to formal action declarations and dismiss such characterization when it occurs in other contexts (what I thought you meant by the &quot;play-acting layer&quot;).Speaking only for myself and not for anyone else who has called 5e flexible, I appreciate that this edition can be used to easily run both games that focus on the tactical layer and games that focus on the strategic layer. Previous editions, especially 3rd and 4th, seemed to me to be more amenable to one style of play or the other. I also find heavily tactical games to look nothing like heavily strategic games, and therefore in the context of D&amp;D I find 5e's ability to handle both styles better than previous editions could to demonstrate a welcome flexibility. I fully agree with you that 5e is not flexible enough to run something in (e.g.) a PbtA style (where notions of tactics and strategy are besides the point) if one were to only look at flexibility in the broadest context.I'm not sure I see the same distinction you do between &quot;the improv theater&quot; and &quot;defining the character through action and choices&quot;. Or, at least, I'm apparently not following your terminology well enough to understand the distinction you're trying to describe.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Xetheral, post: 8360322, member: 6802765"] I'm also fine with third person, so apparently I don't understand the definition of play-acting as you're using it. You're not using it in the demeaning put-down context with which I am familiar, and evidently you're not using it as a synonym for roleplaying as I came to think you were. Could you please try to clarify what the term play-acting means to you, and how it you see it as differing from roleplaying? To clarify my own language, the part of D&D that I've mentioned trying to emphasize (and that I thought you were dismissing) is interacting with the game world (including NPCs, other PCs, and the environment) from the perspective of one's character. From my perspective you seemed to only care about such interaction when it was tied to formal action declarations and dismiss such characterization when it occurs in other contexts (what I thought you meant by the "play-acting layer"). Speaking only for myself and not for anyone else who has called 5e flexible, I appreciate that this edition can be used to easily run both games that focus on the tactical layer and games that focus on the strategic layer. Previous editions, especially 3rd and 4th, seemed to me to be more amenable to one style of play or the other. I also find heavily tactical games to look nothing like heavily strategic games, and therefore [I]in the context of D&D [/I]I find 5e's ability to handle both styles better than previous editions could to demonstrate a welcome flexibility. I fully agree with you that 5e is not flexible enough to run something in (e.g.) a PbtA style (where notions of tactics and strategy are besides the point) if one were to only look at flexibility in the broadest context. I'm not sure I see the same distinction you do between "the improv theater" and "defining the character through action and choices". Or, at least, I'm apparently not following your terminology well enough to understand the distinction you're trying to describe. [/QUOTE]

Verification