Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 9874945" data-attributes="member: 7026617">It occurs to me--and this could be dead wrong in some people's case--that some of this divide might be related to an old distinction I remember coming up during the r.g.f.a. days that seems to have largely fallen away over the years as far as at least use of the terms, but even, far as I can tell, discussion of it conceptually much.This was the distinction between Design At Start (DAS) and Develope In Play (DIP).  The idea is that some people come into play with a character that is fairly fully formed from the get-go in regard to personality, priorities and ethos, and some that are to one degree or another, kind of a tabula rasa when started, and the player develops what they're all about by watching them in play.  At one time this used to be pretty purely a matter of player choice, because early games might have a bit about the character's background, but not in a degree that told you much about them internally.  With some modern games this is less possible, but some still only primarily establish external m things and don't care much about internal ones (or even some history elements) in any pre-establishment way.</blockquote>