Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="seskis281" data-source="post: 3030991" data-attributes="member: 41593">Agreed.... my example of the barbarian doesn't mean I would want a character to act "stupidly" in all situations... and certainly I tell players with characters like this who might start to do something in combat based on that roleplay "I think Grug's been in enough battles to avoid making that choice...." - on the other hand a situation like the trap I mentioned above with the barbarian would be a wholly different matter, unless he has seen that sort of thing numerous times. So no, it shouldn't be 100% in either time or place...But it shouldn't be 0% either. I think the reason we keep seeing these somewhat heated threads on terms like "metagaming" and "roleplay vs. rollplay" come up because we have a tendency to keep swerving to an either/or kind of thing. Even as a theatre guy, I DON'T want roleplay to mean "theatrics" at the table all the time.... which alot of people associate with the term. I DO want discussion sometimes between players OOG... which some people call "metagaming," and I encourage it at points because it is a game.... ("Hey... isn't your character from such-and-such a place? Wouldn't they know something about this evil group?" - "Oh yeah... do I know something about x?" - GM says "absoultely" and gives info.... sometimes I'd be the one to remind them).But I do maintain that "roleplaying" means some level of attention to the characters you play - not through theatrics or voices necessarily, but through making sure choices fit with a character's beliefs and attributes. Ergo my problem with the Druid who torches nature to kill the Troll... As a GM I don't think I should be trying to kill characters. I've never had a TPK in any game I've run - I've had times where two characters had to carry the lifeless bodies of comrades back to town and spend much gold on resurrection. Of course, that answers the "after 100's of hours invested I don't want to lose my character" - wouldn't that be the intent of the availability of restoration and resurrection spells in the 1st place at higher levels? I also rewared good "roleplay" with its own xp, and if a character plays their "role" well, especially in combat, I as GM am certainly going to provide the "outs" for saving the character.Now if a PLAYER just plays stupidly, that's a different story and a different thread.In all this we've mainly talked about INT or WIS... what about alignment? I mean, the best tactical move for a LG or NG wizard might be to haul out fireball and be damned what the collatoral damage could be (in a city for instance).... but I'd want the character of that alignment to play their character as if they cared about what they unintentionally do with a spell. I had a good wizard stop and say to me "By the way... what I'm about to say to this captive Orc is just BS... my character won't actually do this..." and then proceed to threaten intense flaying and torture with the help of prestidigitation to produce imaginary razors while he described to the Orc what was "about" to happen, so the party could get a piece of much needed info. Had he just DONE said torture it would have been completely out of character... but what he did was good roleplaying, IMHO, and while reminding me OOG about his character might be "metagaming" it's different than players stopping and talking tactics during a fight.Again, all just my opinion here.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool    :cool:"  data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" /></blockquote>

Verification