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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5812844" data-attributes="member: 42582">This is very clear - I can see now why you don't just want to talk about acting.I understand the distinction you are drawing here, but I'm tempted to say that the difference is between someone who is playing the game and someone who isn't. But, depending exactly on what the game is, I'm not sure who is in which category.For example, if you're playing a scenario like Tomb of Horrors, and one player has his/her PC do whatever is expedient, while another plays his/her PC with all the flair and flourishes that you describe, then I want to say that the second player is in the wrong game. That PC doesn't belong in the ToH. Conversely, a game in which you want it to matter whether or not a PC cares for women is one in which there should also be cosequences for playing a PC as merely expedient. Some systems have mechanics to help bring this out (eg Burning Wheel with Beliefs and Instincts) but even when it is not right there in the mechanics, it is still possible to run a game so that these sorts of choices matter.Now obviously RPGing is a social hobby, and in many groups there are going to be players with differening preferences. So compromises are made, scenarios are run in which "cares for women" matters sometimes but not always, and "expedient mercenary" has consequences sometimes but not always. But in this situation, I wouldn't say that one is more of a roleplayer than the other. That seems like just the sort of language that might upset the compromise - I mean, the whole point of the compromise is to make roleplaying an expedient mercenary a viable path to take in that particular group.</blockquote>

Verification