Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8089238" data-attributes="member: 18">That might be a problem, but the main person I've been speaking to - iserith - specifically stated that was their primary motive. Not in unclear terms, either! Look upthread.I dunno, it depends how you do it, doesn't it? I feel like what I'm opposing here is the extremes of behaviour. I specifically said, for example, we can always expect some OOC or against-character behaviour. That's not problematic, within reason.And yeah, sometimes a character needs to change. If you gradually change them, that's probably impressive role-playing.Equally, if you go full OOC, explain what you're doing, and say "My backstory blew, and I don't like my dude's personality, so I'm changing it!", I don't think anyone will argue with you or see that as bad. Some people re-roll when they do that, but if you like the PC mechanically I think this is fine, and I've seen it done. I've considered doing it myself, but did the slow modification instead.But if you just always say what you think is going to get you to avoid a roll (which again, is specifically what I was responding to!), and never RP in a way that might put you at a disadvantage, that's yeah, bad RPing in my, RE's, opinion.I don't think 1 is as simple as you suggest, and it's not opinion in previous editions, certainly 1E/2E, it's supported by the actual text, quite strongly (see much earlier in this thread, not my posts).2. No. I've not suggested anything of the sort, and that's completely mad. I have no idea where that's coming from, but it's not from me. It's absolutely valid to add to your backstory, within reason. It can get really stupid and cheesy, and the DM is within his rights to say "Okay, dude, your character is 22, and you're saying he was mercenary for several years, is suddenly the rightful heir to a kingdom, and was raised as such, now you're claiming they were a pirate for years, and also that they lived in a monastery and learned the ways of this religion so shouldn't need to make checks? Is that right?" and maybe work with the player to uh, cut down on that sort of thing.Cutting stuff from your backstory should be notified to the DM. Some will allow it, some won't.Ignoring the personality that YOU CHOSE TO ESTABLISH for your PC just to avoid rolls (or not establishing one at all for similar reasons) is pretty crummy. Gradually changing the personality is cool RP, but needs some consistency.3. I don't think that's the goal, but I think taking actions as the character is an important part of good RP, yes. Within reason, of course - you can be tactically smart, and you can justify things, but sometimes you're going to be faced with a situation where you could either stay true to the character, and suffer a disadvantage, or ignore the character and do the smart thing.Everyone will choose the smart thing SOME of the time. If you choose the smart thing ALL of the time, that's pretty obviously power-gaming, and it's extremely unlikely it looks like good RP unless you're RPing Anasûrimbor Kellhus (look it up lol).The issue for me is I think we're not that far apart, but you're reading extreme stuff into what I'm saying that isn't there.Whereas the guy I was arguing with was extremely clear about his position, and the only debate was whether this was poor form or not.EDIT - Post finished now.ROFL. So yes, any term that points out bad behaviour as bad belongs in the "dustbin of history", okay buddy, got it. Cool. Thumb up. But that's pretty intense clarity on your position, I'd suggest, in that you're saying you consider behaviours widely regarded as atrocious, and which can be extremely disruptive and spotlight-stealing to be totally cool.I've asked, multiple times, and you've just pointed me back to answers like "It's up to the player" instead of explaining, so I don't think that's a miss as much as it is you hiding under a bed and refusing to come out, argument-wise.We use Inspiration tons, I note. But it's not very valuable as a motivator for people who play the way you're describing, because it's just Advantage and you can only have 1 of it. That's literally less valuable than one entirely avoided roll.If it stacked up to 5, allowed an auto-success (or high base value, like, a 10 or 15), and was rewarded ONLY for good, in-character role-playing, then I think it would be a good counterbalance to attempts at DM manipulation like you're describing.</blockquote>

Verification