D&D 4th edition rules and what we can learn from them...

[Harshax]

It definitely is up to the players. When I gamed with my brother, he didn't want any part of it. Which fine. I'm just as happy playing wargamer style.

I love CoC, because of the mechanical quality of effecting a character's mental state, which actually elevates my desire to get into the role of the character. To each his own, I agree. I wasn't trying to argue with anyone.

[Nightshade]

The problem is that with mechanics that affect character behavior, you can't really have it both ways; either they're in play or their not (you can have degrees of course). But there's only three broad states with somewhat sharp edges: you don't have mechanics that effect personality (this includes interaction skills with teeth), you have ones that are advisory only, or you have ones that on occasion, demand behavior or at least produce effects based on personality on targets. For some people the first are a necessity, and for some anathema, and you can't really satisfy both in the same system.

Keep in mind its not people who want to play "wargame style" that have issues with this; ultra-gamists are perfectly willing to treat personality mechanics as just one more mechanical process to deal with. Its people who think no set of personality related mechanics will do an adequate job of matching their internal model of the character, and aren't willing to surrender that.

[Harshax]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Its people who think no set of personality related mechanics will do an adequate job of matching their internal model of the character, and aren't willing to surrender that.

I'm not sure that is exactly right. I have never seen a game attempt to force such a thing. CoC is probably the most intrusive of the personality altering game systems, but it limits itself to dictating levels of scared and phobias.

Dying Earth however has much broader influences on how a character is affected mentally. A character can be duped to thinking just about anything, regardless of whether the Player is convinced of the NPC's motivation.

That to me is a good thing. The game mechanics act like the director in a movie, stating 'Your motivation in this scene is this. . . ' For this reason, I disagree that a role player would have argument with the game system, since the mechanics encourage the method that the Player chooses to portray their character and offers, for anyone who rolls lucky enough, the opportunity to role play surprise twists on a character's personality.

The wargame reference, was my shorthand way of speaking only about those who find a character's mental state inviolate of any influence other than their controlling players. This is, in a sense, a wargame approach because it implies that a character, or piece, does exactly what its controller wants it to do. Its attempt carries with it no additional baggage than its player's desire to succeed. This definition, if I'm feeling sharp today, feels very different from a player who wishes to portray a character who can experience both success or failure and is willing to be directed by clever role playing or the cast of a die roll.

I'm rambling, and hungover, and my sentences have too many commas.

Cheers!

Arthur

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Harshax

I'm not sure that is exactly right. I have never seen a game attempt to force such a thing. CoC is probably the most intrusive of the personality altering game systems, but it limits itself to dictating levels of scared and phobias.

Telling a character when he'd be scared and what would introduce psychosis is _well_ into what I'm talking about.

Dying Earth however has much broader influences on how a character is affected mentally. A character can be duped to thinking just about anything, regardless of whether the Player is convinced of the NPC's motivation.

That to me is a good thing. The game mechanics act like the director in a movie, stating 'Your motivation in this scene is this. . . ' For this reason, I disagree that a role player would have argument with the game system, since

You can disagree all you want, but since you don't get to define what a roleplayer thinks, that's still the way plenty of them feel about it. Otherwise you're essentially asserting the right to define what rule players in general think, and those that don't aren't roleplayers. I'll give you the credit of assuming that's not what you mean to say.

[/quote]

The wargame reference, was my shorthand way of speaking only about those who find a character's mental state inviolate of any influence other than their controlling players. This is, in a sense, a wargame approach because it implies that a character, or piece, does exactly what its controller wants it to do. Its
[/quote]

It depends how you define "wants"; if you define it as "thinks they're the only person at a game table that is authorized to decide how their character would appropriately respond to a mental stimulus", then I'd say that's exactly how many people feel, and I quite think it would be redefining the terms really bizarrely to call them wargamers and not roleplayers.

[frogspawner]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

It depends how you define "wants"; if you define it as "thinks they're the only person at a game table that is authorized to decide how their character would appropriately respond to a mental stimulus", then I'd say that's exactly how many people feel, and I quite think it would be redefining the terms really bizarrely to call them wargamers and not roleplayers.

But even wargames have rules for morale. RPGs, where the player is supposed to supply that sort of control, are often a bit lacking in that regard. That leaves the door open to powergame-style disregard for character.

[Harshax]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

I'll give you the credit of assuming that's not what you mean to say.

Yes, I was making a point about oranges.

Scratch that.

If you are the only person who gets to decide what your character thinks or feels, you're a wargamer, or powergamer. Yeah, powergamer is probably what I mean. If your character can be influenced to react in the same way that a character can be struck down with a sword, mechanically or no, then you are a role player. I can decide on a label and also decide that I'm not trying to make you believe it, or attempt to alter an opinion held of yourself or your playmates.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by frogspawner

But even wargames have rules for morale. RPGs, where the player is supposed to supply that sort of control, are often a bit lacking in that regard. That leaves the door open to powergame-style disregard for character.

That's quite true. It doesn't change the fact that's exactly the stance people I've known I could not describe as anything but hardcore roleplayers sometimes hold. At most they'll tolerate paranormal manipulation (simply because its so disconnected with any normal internal model), and often they don't much like even that.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Harshax

If you are the only person who gets to decide what your character thinks or feels, you're a wargamer, or powergamer. Yeah, powergamer is probably what I mean. If your character can be influenced to react in the same way that a character can be struck down with a sword, mechanically or no, then you are a role player. I can decide on a label and also decide that I'm not trying to make you believe it, or attempt to alter an opinion held of yourself or your playmates.

Then I'll flatly tell you I that's a fairly stupid and entirely useless redefinition of the term.

[soltakss]

Originally Posted by Harshax

If you are the only person who gets to decide what your character thinks or feels, you're a wargamer, or powergamer. Yeah, powergamer is probably what I mean. If your character can be influenced to react in the same way that a character can be struck down with a sword, mechanically or no, then you are a role player. I can decide on a label and also decide that I'm not trying to make you believe it, or attempt to alter an opinion held of yourself or your playmates.

I just don't get this.

I've never needed a rules system to make me roleplay. Some systems force you into certain actions or change tactics because of the rules systems, but roleplaying is entirely independent of rules systems.

Look at RQ, it's a system that isn't particularly friendly to roleplayers, at least that's what a lot of people say, but it has spells that change your emotional state (Fear, Madness, Demoralise, Fanatacism, Berseker) and spells/effects that change how you feel. It also has a rich level of cult/assoaciation membership that influence how you should feel and what lifestyle your PC leads. So, according to your definition, RQ makes everyone a roleplayer not a powergamer. That can't be right, surely.

Perhaps it is, although D&D does much the same thing - you play Alignments and certain character classes define how you play the game - play a Paladin and you play in a certain way. That changes how you think and act.

But, to me, a roleplayer is someone who takes on a role and plays that role in a game. It's as simple as that. How you do it is completely personal. I roleplay in a different way to other people in my group, but we all manage to have enjoyable games.

I just don't get all the theories of roleplaying. You do it to play a game and have fun. Anything more is too complicated for me.

[rust]

Originally Posted by Harshax

If you are the only person who gets to decide what your character thinks or feels, you're a wargamer, or powergamer.

I also do not get it.

When I create a character, I make a character concept. This concept descri-
bes the personality of the character, what he likes and dislikes, and so on.
And then I roleplay this character according to that concept.

I do not need a rule to decide who can influence the character in what way,
because I know it from the character concept and the way the character
developed during the game, and I play the character accordingly.