Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7334712" data-attributes="member: 42582">[MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION], I've just XPed a whole lot of your posts as they basically reiterate, pithily, what I've been saying for several pages now!On the &quot;what is RPGing&quot; thing that you and [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] have posted about in your most recent posts, I'm happy to accept that mainstream RPGing involves &quot;inhabiting&quot; a character. (I know there's some wacky stuff out there that heads in a different direction, but I'm actually fairly conservative in my RPGing tastes! - certainly moreso than chaochou.)In dungeoncrawling the &quot;inhabitation&quot; is pretty simple - it's a way of establishing permissible &quot;moves&quot; that follow from the PCs' fictional positioning.In the sort of play that I think is more typical today, the PC is expected to have some life or motivation that goes beyond just being a tool to establish permissible moves. S/he is a character in the literary sense, with drives, motivations, dramatic needs etc.There is no contradiction between inhabiting one's PC in this sense, and it being the case that an action declaration can result in the fiction containing the embellishment that you found the map you were searching for in the study where you were looking for it.One reason I dislike GM-driven RPGing is that these tend to be subordinated in play - so my PC's goal (to borrow an example from <a href="https://playsorcerer.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/the-interactive-toolkit-part-two-why-do-modules-suck/" target="_blank">Christopher Kubasik</a> might be to woo a princess, but I spend my time hunting for the GM's McGuffin. There's a lot of discussion on these boards about &quot;murder hobos&quot;, but I think a certain approach to play naturally tends to lead to it - if there is no significant scope in play for players to express their PCs' dramatic needs, it's natural that their range of character motivations will tend to narrow into ones that they can express.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7334712, member: 42582"] [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION], I've just XPed a whole lot of your posts as they basically reiterate, pithily, what I've been saying for several pages now! On the "what is RPGing" thing that you and [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] have posted about in your most recent posts, I'm happy to accept that mainstream RPGing involves "inhabiting" a character. (I know there's some wacky stuff out there that heads in a different direction, but I'm actually fairly conservative in my RPGing tastes! - certainly moreso than chaochou.) In dungeoncrawling the "inhabitation" is pretty simple - it's a way of establishing permissible "moves" that follow from the PCs' fictional positioning. In the sort of play that I think is more typical today, the PC is expected to have some life or motivation that goes beyond just being a tool to establish permissible moves. S/he is a character in the literary sense, with drives, motivations, dramatic needs etc. There is no contradiction between inhabiting one's PC in this sense, and it being the case that an action declaration can result in the fiction containing the embellishment that you found the map you were searching for in the study where you were looking for it. One reason I dislike GM-driven RPGing is that these tend to be subordinated in play - so my PC's goal (to borrow an example from [url=https://playsorcerer.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/the-interactive-toolkit-part-two-why-do-modules-suck/]Christopher Kubasik[/url] might be to woo a princess, but I spend my time hunting for the GM's McGuffin. There's a lot of discussion on these boards about "murder hobos", but I think a certain approach to play naturally tends to lead to it - if there is no significant scope in play for players to express their PCs' dramatic needs, it's natural that their range of character motivations will tend to narrow into ones that they can express. [/QUOTE]

Verification