Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jack7" data-source="post: 4878270" data-attributes="member: 54707">Obviously Aus, when it comes to playing non-humans, a player cannot emulate or develop their own corresponding nature when the character possesses abilities like seeing objects in the infra-red spectrum, or hearing like a wolf, or stepping between dimensions, or whatnot. And there's not much call for fireballs in the real world, not magical ones anyway. Though I've seen a few fireballs in my day, I gotta admit to that one.And no, I do not have to laugh. Ever. Just joking of course. I often laugh at the sight of Elves dressed as fruitloops. Though dwarves as coco puffs are pretty funny too. Then again I saw Count Chocula once as a ten foot tall Blueberry marshmellow (he was working an alias), and he had just rolled seven three times in a row. So we arrested him on suspicion of fixing games and being frosted without a license.But back to the point. A human can only correspond towards (his character's) attributes and skills sets that he or she also possesses. But every player character has a strength, an intelligence, and so forth as far as attributes go, and many humans possess skill sets like tracking, observational skills, being able to read or speak more than one language, climbing, running long distance, swimming, survival skills, etc, etc. So what I am proposing is simultaneous or parallel development of those attributes, capabilities, and skills that both the character and the player possess in common. The ones they do not possess in common obviously cannot be simultaneously or correspondingly increased, developed, or augmented. Though maybe a sort of exchange system could be developed, but that's a bit beyond this proposal or method. That's why I said this:I posited this as a method, not a demanded method. One which has advantages for both character and player development. But as I pointed out not a forced method, but a variant one.The reason I said I had no interest in debating the idea of "games are only or merely escapist entertainment" is because that position is diametrically opposed to what I am proposing. Logically, if one starts from the premise that games are only escapist, and have no real relation to the real world, or no reality outside the parameters of the game itself (statements others have made to me on this very website, though I am quoting no-one verbatim), then obviously this system would have little or no value to a person holding such a philosophy of gaming. But as I pointed out, with this system, a wide range of variations are possible. The only thing that is not really possible to entertain as a variation or hybrid in debating the issue is the idea that games must be only escapist, or fantasy, or unrelated to reality. If one begins from the position that games are unrelated to reality then of course debating or advancing or discussing or seeking to improve a situation like this is a fruitless exercise. So I have no interest in discussing the "games are only fantasy position" because such a discussion will go nowhere. It already presumes that what I am proposing is useless. Therefore, no point to the exercise, because that is definitely not my position on the matter. To save time and because that position presupposes the impossibility, or at least the uselessness of my proposal, I am disregarding that position as far as this method is concerned. I'm not gonna argue that point as it is non sequitur and a non-starter. It may be a perfectly valid position to hold, though I do not share it, but for purposes of what I am proposing, it is nihilistic, and therefore non-debatable. In all other respects however I am open to discussion.I suspected, as long as role play gaming has been around, that I would hardly be the first to have generated such an idea. I'd be surprised if I was the first in that respect. At least as far as playing your own attributes. I'd be interesting in seeing how the values were derived (what system was formulated for a player to derive what he or she thought of as a good rendering of "their own capabilities or attributes."). Did for instance, if I understand you correctly, did the other players set the values for the stats or attributes? Was it entirely based upon the recommendations of the other players? Or did the player himself get input regarding his own stats or attributes?I also like the idea, if I'm following you correctly, of playing your own attributes, and having that augmented or enhanced by super-powers. How the two ideas were intermeshed. What method was used there as well?Was there also a method for improvement throughout play for both the player and the character? I suspect that what is original about this system, the one I invented, is not the play as yourself idea, but the idea of corresponding character-player improvement throughout the game. I'd be interested in knowing if anyone else has heard of this or a similar idea before?The me before the I of Nightfall?That's an old inside joke...Anywho I gotta hit the sack. Not much sleep lately, or free time.And I gotta get myself and my daughter studied up for flight camp.Appreciate the input gentlemen.Bel, if you wanna tell me what you know about the system you mentioned then I'm all ears.I'd like to hear the details.</blockquote>

Verification