Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mythusmage" data-source="post: 1569343" data-attributes="member: 571">But he sta... No, I'm not going to go there. Uh-unh, not again. Sorry.Does that mean they become the same thing? I submit that Throng is not Bob, Throng is Bob's character. While Bob may become emotionally invested in Throng, that does not mean he has to be as emotionally invested as he is in himself.This allows for a certain degree of distancing between Bob and Throng, and so what happens to Throng becomes of less importance than if it were Bob himself engaged in the conflict.This is, of course, a bit off the path. The subject of player-character relations really deserves it's own thread.&quot;Games&quot;, not &quot;game&quot;. For &quot;game&quot; I'd rather just drop it entirely and use the name of the &quot;game&quot; itself. So instead of the Dungeons &amp; Dragons® game it would simply be Dungeons &amp; Dragons®What implied competition? The players have their parts to play, the GM has his. So long as all parties remember this there need be no player/player (after all, the GM is as much a player as those he runs each adventure for, for all his roles are different than their's) competition.Bad manners is another matter entirely. One best dealt with by each group, and the assistance of the authorities should it get out of handWhat of those who might enter the hobby were it not for those who treat it as a game?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="mythusmage, post: 1569343, member: 571"] But he sta... No, I'm not going to go there. Uh-unh, not again. Sorry. Does that mean they become the same thing? I submit that Throng is not Bob, Throng is Bob's character. While Bob may become emotionally invested in Throng, that does not mean he has to be as emotionally invested as he is in himself. This allows for a certain degree of distancing between Bob and Throng, and so what happens to Throng becomes of less importance than if it were Bob himself engaged in the conflict. This is, of course, a bit off the path. The subject of player-character relations really deserves it's own thread. "Games", not "game". For "game" I'd rather just drop it entirely and use the name of the "game" itself. So instead of the Dungeons & Dragons® game it would simply be [i]Dungeons & Dragons®[/i] What implied competition? The players have their parts to play, the GM has his. So long as all parties remember this there need be no player/player (after all, the GM is as much a player as those he runs each adventure for, for all his roles are different than their's) competition. Bad manners is another matter entirely. One best dealt with by each group, and the assistance of the authorities should it get out of hand What of those who might enter the hobby were it not for those who treat it as a game? [/QUOTE]

Verification