Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 6866387">Oh, drat.&nbsp; In an effort to avoid double-posting I ended up not posting at all.&nbsp; I wrote a beautiful, utterly persuasive post, too.&nbsp; Y'all would have converted.Anyway...I want to clarify that I'm not claiming using player knowledge is roleplaying.&nbsp; I'm just saying that not roleplaying all the time isn't synonymous with &quot;bad&quot; roleplaying.&nbsp; Nor is staying in character synonymous with &quot;good&quot; roleplaying.Let's take two extreme examples:Player 1 never breaks character.&nbsp; He never metagames, he pretends to not know that trolls burn, and every action he takes he is thinking, &quot;Ok, how would my wood elf archer with low Charisma do this&quot; and tries his best to behave that way.&nbsp; As a result he ends up repeating the same roleplaying, over and over again.&nbsp; For example, every time he interacts with an urban NPC he makes the same off-putting comments about their lack of connection with nature and their wastefulness with wood.&nbsp; Or something like that.&nbsp; But he's consistent.Player 2 is almost never in character.&nbsp; He says anachronistic things as he charges into combat.&nbsp; He metagames (&quot;if you move one square over you'll let so-and-so use his such-and-such ability&quot;).&nbsp; He simply states skill use without describing it (&quot;I guess I'll roll Deception...&quot;).&nbsp; But he's developed a unique and interesting character, and every now and then...a few times per session...he'll jump into character with something brilliantly descriptive, with the result that everybody at the table knows this character's personality.&nbsp; So that even when he's not roleplaying at all (&quot;I roll Deception...&quot;) the other players at the table have a colorful mental model. Sort of like when a character in a novel says or does something totally innocuous (c.f. anything by Cormac McCarthy) you have a strong image because the author has already done a great job developing that character.Player1 is clearly the more disciplined roleplayer.&nbsp; But I might very well call Player2 the better roleplayer.By the way, I am NOT saying these two things are mutually exclusive.&nbsp; Player 1 might very well also have moments of sublime roleplaying.&nbsp; And Player 2, based on personal observations, is just as likely (if not more so) to be a bad roleplayer in general.&nbsp; I acknowledge that.&nbsp; I'm making a necessary vs. sufficient argument, not a mutual exclusivity argument.I just don't find version 1, by itself, very interesting or &quot;immersive&quot;. Consistency is not a prerequisite for quality.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 6866387"] Oh, drat. In an effort to avoid double-posting I ended up not posting at all. I wrote a beautiful, utterly persuasive post, too. Y'all would have converted. Anyway... I want to clarify that I'm not claiming using player knowledge is roleplaying. I'm just saying that not roleplaying all the time isn't synonymous with "bad" roleplaying. Nor is staying in character synonymous with "good" roleplaying. Let's take two extreme examples: Player 1 never breaks character. He never metagames, he pretends to not know that trolls burn, and every action he takes he is thinking, "Ok, how would my wood elf archer with low Charisma do this" and tries his best to behave that way. As a result he ends up repeating the same roleplaying, over and over again. For example, every time he interacts with an urban NPC he makes the same off-putting comments about their lack of connection with nature and their wastefulness with wood. Or something like that. But he's consistent. Player 2 is almost never in character. He says anachronistic things as he charges into combat. He metagames ("if you move one square over you'll let so-and-so use his such-and-such ability"). He simply states skill use without describing it ("I guess I'll roll Deception..."). But he's developed a unique and interesting character, and every now and then...a few times per session...he'll jump into character with something brilliantly descriptive, with the result that everybody at the table knows this character's personality. So that even when he's not roleplaying at all ("I roll Deception...") the other players at the table have a colorful mental model. Sort of like when a character in a novel says or does something totally innocuous (c.f. anything by Cormac McCarthy) you have a strong image because the author has already done a great job developing that character. Player1 is clearly the more [I]disciplined[/I] roleplayer. But I might very well call Player2 the [I]better[/I] roleplayer. By the way, I am NOT saying these two things are mutually exclusive. Player 1 might very well also have moments of sublime roleplaying. And Player 2, based on personal observations, is just as likely (if not more so) to be a bad roleplayer in general. I acknowledge that. I'm making a necessary vs. sufficient argument, not a mutual exclusivity argument. I just don't find version 1, by itself, very interesting or "immersive". Consistency is not a prerequisite for quality. [/QUOTE]

Verification