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: 6962737" data-attributes="member: 42582">In the OP, I talked about role defined by functions, capacities, responsibilities, etc.As I said, Gygax saw class as central to this, though alignment also mattered. In 4e, the capacities and the corresponding responsibilities arise from the whole suite of PC build components, of which class combat role is only one element and potentially quite minor. (Depending on the particular PC.)In post 35, prompted by [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION], I extended the idea to more "indie" RPGs:In BW and MHRP, I think the mechanics are intended to make personality/colour part of the character's function. (Hence mechanics like Beliefs, Distinctions, etc.) So performing the character's function will inevitably bring the character's personality to the fore, and perhaps lead to it changing (eg in my MHRP game, Nightcrawler ended up forsaking his Catholicism under Wolverine's more cynical influence, taking Mental trauma in the process). The colour of the characters is not mere colour; and it is not a factor primarily just in free roleplaying or in choosing what action to declare. It matters to resolution. I think MHRP is "light" in this respect - like 5e rather than Gygaxian AD&D - the player is expected to notice and enjoy the colour of the character feeding into, as well as emerging out of, play, but there is no real pressure to do anything about it. BW is more hardcore, the "indie" equivalent of Gyagxian skilled play: not only is personality/colour a key element of function, but the player is expected to work it hard, and there is definitely such a thing as doing it better or worse. Hence why I think BW can be quite a challenging game for players (far more demanding than 4e D&D or MHRP).I've emphasised "it matters to resolution", because I think that is key to function vs (mere) characterisation.To self-quote for a third time in one post, from the other "wargaming vs roleplaying" thread that is currently active,if your claim about your character is that s/he is brave, then show me that in mechanical terms. Show me how s/he is resistant to fear. Show me how her morale is unbreakable. If you show me your low-hp thief who has no serious WIS/will save/defence and will fall unconscious at the first turn of the wheel on the rack, I can see how your character might be reckless or foolhardy, but I'm not seeing anything that shows me s/he is brave.The difference I'm seeing is what it means to put yourself in the character's shoes. To me, that means first and foremost engaging with the character from the mechanical point of view - which, in 4e extends to character Quests (goals), in BW includes character Beliefs, Relationships, etc, in MHRP includes character Distinctions (traits) and Milestones (goals/traits).These tell you what your functions, capacities and responsibilities are, as far as playing the game is concerned.This is very different from the 2nd ed AD&D PHB, in my view (and experiences of playing AD&D in the 2nd ed era), which presents the cultivation of a unique personality that will be entertaining at the table as an end in itself. In the approach I prefer, that personality will be a byproduct of playing the character.</blockquote>

Verification