Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gamerprinter" data-source="post: 6345624" data-attributes="member: 50895">No bait intended - my point was, back in 1e/2e days the gaming groups I was with did lots of roleplaying, speaking in mechanical terms was practically banned. My current group which is 3/4s 30 and under in age, don't understand roleplaying and do not do this. So when I do it, the other players don't get it.I can agree that the game systems have become far more sophisticated than earlier versions, but the how a player approaches his/her character concept, as far as I can tell hasn't improved (granted I've only primarily played D&D/PF, and not many other systems.) Rules are more complex and better (?) at attempting to emulate mechanical concepts vs. the less concrete rules of the past. However, character concept hasn't been given better descriptors than past versions of the game.I'm not omniscient, I can only convey any information in any post on this or any forum as anecdotal - I don't have knowledge from everyone's point of view, only mine. I never understand how any is expected to provide "perspectives", except from anecdotal points of view. I'm really not trying to anal here, honestly, how can one provide a perspective unless its their own? 'Persoective" is what you're asking for right?I haven't trivialized anything, at least not intentionally.I never said, the game systems haven't improved, I only stated my current players is the problem, which has absolutely nothing to do with the game as it was or as it currently is. (I don't know why you're twisting my words into things I never intended...?!) I would say my experience is fine and I use that experience by applying the best aspects of past editions into whatever edition I am currently playing. Back when TSR was making those vinyl covered handbooks, the Villains Handbook had an excellent list of questions from phobias, inspiring events, contradictory events, flaws, and other similar concerns were asked to be answered to define a truly deep villain design. I've applied that list to a worksheet to provide my players when they are building their character concepts. It is by experience alone, that I use that in my current game.Except for the 2e Villains Handbook, I agree D&D/PF hasn't expanded on that.I've never played those games, so I have no response or point of view regarding those.That's always the case, isn't it? The system and rules are to govern how to handle mechanics to a given activity. How we think about play really has little to do with the system.Here is a way for me to explain how those are separate. A character that is extraverted, boisterous and good humored, aside from diplomacy/charisma emphasis, I can see applying this kind of character to any alignment, any class, any archetype, any additional skills outside of charisma based ones. The rules defining character concept (aside from high charisma) has no affect pro or con in creating an extraverted, boisterous and good humored PC.Again, I have no knowledge what others in 1978 were doing, only those I gamed with - and in my experience more effort went into roleplay back then, than the group I game with today. (It might very well be true that the majority today roleplay more, and only isolated groups did so in 1978, but as stated, I only play with those I have.)</blockquote>

Verification