Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 5810129" data-attributes="member: 8835">It's ok, i know you're literate <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />this is a good point.  I try not to define my PC's traits as ones that interfere with gaming, but sometimes it happens.  I once had a PC who was afraid of water and wouldn't you know it, at some point the party had to get on a boat to sail away from enemies.However, like the case of the coward, I find a way to portray my character's trait AND fulfill the tactical objective.  That may mean acting scared WHILE doing the activity he's scared of.To me, part of the challenge is when you define the PC, those are voluntary constraints on the PC.If I was playing Senator John McCain in a 24-ish scenario, it would be out of character for him to advocate the use of torture.  He would argue with Jack Bauer to not torture the suspect.  Howerver, as a player, i know that the Jack Bauer PC has a really high Interrogate skill and this does seem to be the only way to get the answer.  So, I would roleplay the argument, but maneuver things so the other player can do his thing.  I would try to be a bit more subtle than the stupid paladin goes to check on the horses while the party interogates the prisoner.  But shows like 24 demonstrate how 2 characters can disagree and one side will get their way, but they will still be able to work together afterwards.</blockquote>

Verification