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: 6937671" data-attributes="member: 42582">Yes, I made this point in the OP.If I build a AD&D thief, I have a pick pockets skill. Because of this, I might decide to declare, as an action, that I pick some NPC's pocket because I want some money.If I am playing Marvel Heroic RP Wolverine, then I have a Milestone called "Old Friends, Old Enemies", which gives me 1 XP when I declare someone an old ally or foe, and 3 XP when I aid my old ally or deal trauma to my old foe; and another called "And What I Do Isn't Very Nice",  which gives me 10 XP when I either kill someone in front of innocents, or recover from my berserker ragein front of innocents without having inflicted trauma on anyone. Having these Milestones, I might declare an NPC I'm confronting an old foe, deal traum to him/her, and even kill him/her in front of my innocent Catholic friend Nightcrawler. (This series of events happened in the last session of MHRP that I GMed.)I don't think either of these is the same as what is described in the 2nd ed AD&D PHB. Neither is a case of "creat[ing] a unique and entertaining personality in the game" regardless of whether I have "good" or "disappointing" stats. Rather, they are both cases of reading the character sheet, identifying the mechanical capabilities (the "stats"), responsibilities etc of the character and then putting them to work. It's not about removing the persona. It's about whether creating an entertaining persona, regardless of stats, is how you envisage roleplaying.Clearly that's what Zeb Cook thought of, assuming he was sincere when he wrote the 2nd ed AD&D PHB. I've played with D&D players think of RPGing in this style. And those games are noticeably different from mine.I'm not "appealing to authority" - I'm trying to interpret what it was that Gygax envisaged as the contribution of alignment to roleplaying.On p 7 of his PHB he says that "You act out the game as this character, staying within your 'godgiven abilities', and as molded by your philosophical and moral ethics (called alignment)." On p 86 of his DMG he instructs the GM, in judging how well a player has played, to consider both "the natural functions of each class of character . . . [and] the professed alignment of each character."The 2nd ed AD&D PHB's discussion of alignment says that Ultimately, the player is advised to pick an alignment he can play comfortably, one that fits in with those of the rest of the group, and he should stay with that alignment for the course of the character's career. There will be times when the DM, especially if he is clever, creates situations to test the character's resolve and ethics. But finding the right course of action within the character's alignment is part of the fun and challenge of roleplaying.I think that is actually closer to Gygax's approach - alignment as a constraint on the character's proper capabilities/responsibilities - than the stuff in the same book about "creating an entertaining personality".Huh? You (and some other posters) are the ones who started arguing - telling me I'm wrong. I just wanted a discussion about different approaches, not an argument as to why some approaches are wrong.I didn't say anything about group composition, and nor do any of the quotes from the AD&D books talk about group composition. Others in the thread have talked about group composition being important to them, though.By function or capability I mean what Gygax calls "the natural functions" of a character, based on his/her "godgiven abilities". In classic D&D these are determined by class. In games with more intricate PC building rules, they can be determined on a more fine-grained basis than class (even in 2nd ed AD&D, for instance, whether or not a thief can pick pockets, and hence has pilfering as one of his/her "natural functions", depends on player choices in PC building).Roleplaying, in the sense where function et al are salient, means taking the character, reading the sheet, identifying the "natural functions", and then putting them to work.As I said earlier in this post, I'm talking about roleplay in the sense of aiming at the creation of a distinct and entertaining personality, to a significant extent regardless of stats.I think that Gygax used "roleplaying" to mean taking on a certain imagined function or suite of capabiltieis in the game; and that, by the late 80s (as reflected in the AD&D 2nd ed PHB), the terms was generally used to talk about making up an entertaining personality.My response is that I don't see the difference between "assuming", "fulfilling", "becoming" and "doing the job of".Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, at her coronation, assumed the role of queen, became queen, commenced doing the job of queen, and thereby fulfilled the role of queen. Maybe there are some usages that draw signficant distinctions, but at the moment they're escaping me.What interests me is how Falstaff is characterised. Gygax says nothing about Falstaff's personality, but emphasises very much that becoming Falstaff means knowing your stats, class and alignment. So far from saying that becoming Falstaff means making up and expressing a personality for Falstaff, it says that the GM might make up Falstaff's appearance and backstory.</blockquote>

Verification