Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7768920" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I think the game in question dictates how this works. And while we can say that OS deals with it one way, and NS deals with it another way (or other ways, depending on the specific game in question), this change in the game has no impact on the ability for PCs to face failure or loss, which was the premise of the OP. However, this tangent of the conversation was about advocacy and how it is being viewed here. Advocating for your character is a part of character creation, and it is a part of play. I mean advocate in the strongest sense possible. I don't think that my definition is functionally any different than your &quot;being the character&quot; definition. Mine just acknowledges that &quot;I am John, not Ragnar, and John will do everything he can for Ragnar to succeed at what he wants.&quot; Yours is &quot;I am Ragnar and I will do everything I can to succeed.&quot; There is a difference, but it's really not significant. My level of immersion is, I don't think, any less then yours because I don't think that you're delusional and have actually forgotten that you're someone playing a game rather than a being in the game. So I don't think that these two definitions are really at odds. Nor do I think that many of the mechanics in modern games will somehow interfere with such immersion. Or, if so, it is entirely subjective and will vary by person, which would also be true of OS methods of character creation and play.That's fine....I think it's a matter of semantics, really. However, for some games, character creation is a group activity that happens in the first session. For such games, it certainly seems like it would fall under &quot;playing the game&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hawkeyefan, post: 7768920, member: 6785785"] I think the game in question dictates how this works. And while we can say that OS deals with it one way, and NS deals with it another way (or other ways, depending on the specific game in question), this change in the game has no impact on the ability for PCs to face failure or loss, which was the premise of the OP. However, this tangent of the conversation was about advocacy and how it is being viewed here. Advocating for your character is a part of character creation, and it is a part of play. I mean advocate in the strongest sense possible. I don't think that my definition is functionally any different than your "being the character" definition. Mine just acknowledges that "I am John, not Ragnar, and John will do everything he can for Ragnar to succeed at what he wants." Yours is "I am Ragnar and I will do everything I can to succeed." There is a difference, but it's really not significant. My level of immersion is, I don't think, any less then yours because I don't think that you're delusional and have actually forgotten that you're someone playing a game rather than a being in the game. So I don't think that these two definitions are really at odds. Nor do I think that many of the mechanics in modern games will somehow interfere with such immersion. Or, if so, it is entirely subjective and will vary by person, which would also be true of OS methods of character creation and play. That's fine....I think it's a matter of semantics, really. However, for some games, character creation is a group activity that happens in the first session. For such games, it certainly seems like it would fall under "playing the game". [/QUOTE]

Verification