G
Guest 6801328
Guest
1) The fact that they give it a quick glance is evidence they are exterting control over backgrounds.
Sure, the DM has veto rights (just like in the title of the thread), but the DM isn't the one creating the story. That's the point: the player is actively inventing elements of the campaign setting, related to but outside of the character. So the only difference between that and the thing Saelorn is saying he doesn't like is when it occurs. On to the next point...
2) Can one roleplay a character that's simply a race and a class with no other information.
Let's try this with an example: Let's take Gnarl the Human Fighter. Gnarl is asked to dance by a human woman. With no other details other than you being a human Fighter you are left more or less randomly picking an answer. A more expansive background and personality opens up the possibility that you can actually pick the course of action that makes the most sense for the character instead of just picking a random course of action.
How expansive? Do you carefully describe every day of every year of the character's life? Of course not. So by restricting yourself to only what you put in the backstory you are actually limiting the backstory and personality. I'd rather start with a sketch, and then during gameplay the events of the adventure, the cues from other players, and even the luck of the dice will give me good ideas to further develop that character.
Think about how (good) books or movies unfold: you see this character, and get a couple of hints at his/her personality. As the story evolves, more hints and references emerge and you develop a more complete picture, but that picture also changes. (The change in character being the entire point of classic storytelling.)
Now compare to a novel...we've all read these...where the first few pages describe a character in detail, down to the color of his eyes, the brand of his whisky, and the caliber of the gun he carries, and then the rest of the book is just that character doing his thing. Sure, sometimes those stories are rollicking adventures that are hard to put down, but we are (ok, I won't speak for you, but I am) somewhat embarrassed to find them enjoyable.
Personally I'd rather tell the former kind of story.
I suppose both can be defined as roleplaying in the sense that you have a character and are having him do things and react to situations. I also suppose it's impossible to entirely get away from reacting to situations that your character could literally act either 50/50 way on. But while such situations are impossible to avoid, it's not those situations that really highlight what roleplaying is. Roleplaying is best highlighted by a "fleshed out character" where a player can leverage certain background truths and personality traits and determine a course of action for said character.
So I guess the best way to say it is that there is a gap between what actually can be fit into the definition of roleplaying (such as having a character make choices) and what we are actually striving for with roleplaying (having a character make choices by leveraging their background and personality).
Yeah, that's all valid opinion, but you present it as fact. It's not.
What I strive for with roleplaying is to portray a character that others at the table find interesting and compelling. Whether the ideas that I use to accomplish that existed before the game started, or whether they occur to me on the fly, shouldn't matter to other players, nor should the difference be discernible to them.
EDIT: Wasn't it Saelorn who wrote, a couple of years ago in a thread about this sort of thing, that roleplaying a wood-elf would require asking "What would a wood-elf do in this situation?" That flabbergasted me.
Last edited by a moderator: