What is a character to you?

[The Shaman]

I think roleplaying games are at their best when the player interfaces with the setting/adventure through his character and also directly with the game as a player. To try and cut out one or the other reduces the fun of the game, IMO.

Yup.

You can roleplay without playing a game, and you can play a game without roleplaying; a roleplaying game specifically includes both.

 

[Tilenas]

I agree with this.

In some ways, the character I choose is a self-imposed restriction on the kind of solutions I can use, or the style of play I will pursue.

Which is exactly what Character is, compared to the player/actor protraying that character. If you're playing a "Timid Housewife" than that is the constraint on how you must approach the world. You can't go all ginsu because that's not who this character is.

thus, when you choose your character personality, class, alignment, you are deliberately restricting yourself, as its own puzzle. How to operate and survive in the game world, within the defining qualities of the character you have chosen.

Yeah, you pretty much nailed what I was getting at. One addition: An RPG should let you portray your character not only through restriction, but also through expansion in order to simulate stuff the character can do but the player can't. In this regard, the biggest challenge is interaction, because you obviously can't simulate much of that by speaking in-character. There, a certain degree of abstraction adds to the fun.

 

[The Shaman]

An RPG should let you portray your character not only through restriction, but also through expansion in order to simulate stuff the character can do but the player can't. In this regard, the biggest challenge is interaction, because you obviously can't simulate much of that by speaking in-character. There, a certain degree of abstraction adds to the fun.

This can be taken to what are, to me, absurd extremes, however, where a player feels that the only thing he needs to do to convince an npc of something is roll against a number on his character sheet.

 

[Janx]

Yeah, you pretty much nailed what I was getting at. One addition: An RPG should let you portray your character not only through restriction, but also through expansion in order to simulate stuff the character can do but the player can't. In this regard, the biggest challenge is interaction, because you obviously can't simulate much of that by speaking in-character. There, a certain degree of abstraction adds to the fun.

I disagree with your example. I play with people who can "talk good". we don't need rules to simulate speaking eloquently or thuggishly or to convince an NPC, other than to establish some fairness in resolution.

We do need rules for casting spells, since none of my friends seem to actually be able to do so. Let alone, throwing a fireball in my living room seems to be of little practical import as to its effect on the dragon we're facing in the GM's notes.

 

[Niccodaemus]

Some points to consider

If a character has a higher chance of noticing something, remembering something, etc... the DM can give more/easier clues than another character would get. Basically, DM on a curve, based on character stats.

The feel of the game should be the same, but how the DM interacts with each character should be unique to that characters. If a player of a highly intelligent character is stumped, (s)he can always ask the DM "Do any ideas come to mind as to what this might mean?" "Is there a way I can use my smarts to make the Fighter's chance of succeeding better?"

Simple things like using mechanical advantage, instead of brute strength. I'm a big fan of DMs passing notes to characters. So the DM could pass a note that says something like "Well, you notice that the axle of the overturned carriage resembles that pry bar you saw the blacksmith use last week"

It doesn't have to be perfect. But there should be moments when a character's traits shine, and the player is able to present solutions that are more than a simple die roll, and also feel like they have personally achieved something.

Magic user: "Suppose we took the axle off that carriage, and used it to pry the boulder away?"

 

[Barastrondo]

This can be taken to what are, to me, absurd extremes, however, where a player feels that the only thing he needs to do to convince an npc of something is roll against a number on his character sheet.

Yeah. I don't begrudge players like that the ability to play an RPG, of course, because they're entitled to their fun as well; it's same as the people who just want to roll a die to see if they hit or not. But neither do I really try to play with people like that. I like gaming with folks who want to be entertaining to the rest of the group, so naturally I surround myself with people who would be disappointed if there were no more to it than a roll.

(Exceptions may be made for newbies, be they children or otherwise. I'd still encourage them to do more than roll a die, but not necessarily for every roll if it would seem too fatiguing. Actually, exceptions may be made for reasonable fatigue at any given point.)

 

[Tilenas]

This can be taken to what are, to me, absurd extremes, however, where a player feels that the only thing he needs to do to convince an npc of something is roll against a number on his character sheet.

Absolutely. But there is always the middle ground, at least if you portray your character to the best of your ability. Then getting a boost at appropriate times ties in with that. Of course, a player demanding that his wizard absolutely HAS TO find a solution because he is SO smart and also rolled a 20 doesn't fit into that category. The problem here, however, isn't the die roll involved, but the DM allowing a check without any substantial player input.

I disagree with your example. I play with people who can "talk good". we don't need rules to simulate speaking eloquently or thuggishly or to convince an NPC, other than to establish some fairness in resolution.

We do need rules for casting spells, since none of my friends seem to actually be able to do so. Let alone, throwing a fireball in my living room seems to be of little practical import as to its effect on the dragon we're facing in the GM's notes.

If you don't need any mechanical support for interaction because you are all naturally adept at it, good for you. You simply have no need for it.
Yet I do think that a system that at least provides you with the option to aid players in certain RP aspects is superior to one that doesn't.

 

[The Shaman]

The problem here, however, isn't the die roll involved, but the DM allowing a check without any substantial player input.

Agreed, and I consider "substantial player input" key.

I think of it this way, that the dice are there to determine not what a character can do, but rather how well the character does it. In the games I run, if you want your character to bluff the guard at the gate of the baron de Bauchery's castle, then you need to, at the absolutey barest minimum, outline the substance of the bluff; claiming, "But my character would know what to say!" won't cut it.