Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 7768886" data-attributes="member: 6775031">I'm not saying that there's only one way to play. I'm saying that role-playing as a character is distinct from advocating for a character. Some people may not understand the difference, and I'm trying to explain it for their benefit. I'm sure that some people understand the difference and simply don't care, or they have a preference for the latter; and that's fine, as long as it stays at their table. If you bring NS game-play into an OS game environment, then the OS gamers are going to be justifiably annoyed at you.The traits are real to the character, but the mechanics by which they activate are highly meta-game. There are other ways to encourage the playing of flawed characters.If a player has a flaw, then it can be difficult for them to not pass the flaw onto their character, unless they put a lot of work into it. That's true, even if the character is supposed to have a completely different set of flaws. Giving the character a negative trait does not make it easier to work around player shortcomings, any more than giving the character a positive trait would (by giving the player something to focus on).It's not more realistic for a character to have glaring flaws, that would work against them in their daily life; many people only have minor flaws, that never create serious complications for anyone. It's just that some players and some designers think flawed characters make for a more compelling narrative, or are more-relatable (TV Tropes: ThisLoserIsYou). Realistically, given the choice between a competent individual with no serious flaws, and an equally-competent individual with weird quirks and shortcomings, the former should be more successful than the latter; and it's incredibly unrealistic for any ruleset to suggest otherwise.</blockquote>

Verification