What is a character to you?

[Desdichado]

It really depends on what the individuals find fun. If the game is a challenge only for the character (a collected pile of data) what excitement and engagement is there for the player. In theory anyone could run that character and deal with the challenges exactly the same way. The character succeeds in combat. The character discovers a vital clue. The character outwits a clever villain. Where is the sense of involvement for someone (such as a person) in all this?

This strikes me a bit as a reductio ad absurdum style statement. Because a game has character skills and requires character skill rolls to resolve certain things does not make the game an uninvolving pile of data.

 

[Desdichado]

Because it's the player who is able actually to enjoy playing a game.

Of course, that doesn't answer the question at all, though. For obvious, different players enjoy different things.

To use the stag/branch puzzle--some players would say reducing that to a simple Search check removes any sense of involvement or fun from the game. On the other hand, I would say that that's not fun at all--of course I want to skip all that so that I can enjoy the rest of the game; the parts that are fun, not tedious and boring.

 

[steeldragons]

This strikes me a bit as a reductio ad absurdum style statement. Because a game has character skills and requires character skill rolls to resolve certain things does not make the game an ininvolving pile of data.

There are games that DON'T use skills or require "skill rolls to resolve certain things."

Jus' sayin'.

Carry on.
--SD

 

[Desdichado]

There are games that DON'T use skills or require "skill rolls to resolve certain things."

Jus' sayin'.

Carry on.
--SD

Uh... OK, yeah. No kidding.

That doesn't have anything to do with what I said, though. Maybe I'm missing something obvious (and you can help me see it) but I'm not sure what you're trying to say by pointing that out.

 

[ExploderWizard]

This strikes me a bit as a reductio ad absurdum style statement. Because a game has character skills and requires character skill rolls to resolve certain things does not make the game an uninvolving pile of data.

It certainly doesn't. It is up to the people playing to decide how much and what types of things they want to play out or just roll dice for. Whatever the decision, if the whole group is largely happy with the result its a win.

 

[steeldragons]

Because a game has character skills and requires character skill rolls to resolve certain things does not make the game an uninvolving pile of data.

Sounds fairly straightforward to me.

Sorry if I'm being obtuse...but it sounds like I'm responding to exactly what you are saying.

Forgive me if I'm not.

--SD

 

[Desdichado]

Sounds fairly straightforward to me.

Sorry if I'm being obtuse...but it sounds like I'm responding to exactly what you are saying.

Forgive me if I'm not.

--SD

Sorry, then. I'm afraid I don't know what you're getting at. And it bothers me because I don't know if I should whip out my "Thank you, Captain Obvious" macro, or "Thank you, Captain Irrelevant" macro, or both.

Or, that I'm just missing what you're saying.

Clearly, I already know that there are many games that don't have skill systems. I learned how to play RPGs on BD&D and 1e AD&D--pre-Unearthed Arcana. But I don't know what the presence of these games has to do with the comment I made, which is that the presence of a skill system, and rolling skill checks instead of describing or roleplaying out everything does not make the game uninvolving to an actual person. For the most part, those checks serve to move quickly past the parts of the game that are themselves uninvolving, boring or tedious rather than spend time detailing them. Please, Dear Lord in Heaven, spare me from having to describe all the details of my shopping trip for gear before my character heads out of town. Please, spare me from ever having to describe in detail exactly how I'm looking for a trap or secret door. (For that matter, please spare me from being in a situation where I'm having to look for a trap or secret door.) Please spare me from having to go through my entire conversation, in character dialogue, to bluff, chat up, intimidate, canoodle or wheedle whatever I want out of every innkeeper, bar wench, city guard, local thief, or what have you random minor NPC that I need to get a clue from.

YMMV, naturally. For some people, those same parts are the best parts of the game.

 

[Ariosto]

Of course, that doesn't answer the question at all, though.

Yes, it does.

It is possible for there to be many answers to that question, including the radical, "He should not."

I gave an answer to the question that was directly asked, which was a why question.

 

[Mark CMG]

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.

 

[Janx]

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.

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.