Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
> gleichman wrote:
>
> > And I find the assumption that difficult adventures allowing no time
> > for role-play somewhat foolish. Make time. It isn't hard of that's
what
> > you're interested in.
>
> This to me is a counsel of perfection. There is some player out there
> who can face consistently very difficult scenarios and not suffer any
> loss of her ability to roleplay. But it isn't me. I have been playing
> long enough to know that. Maybe I am a fool. I thought, though, that
> we had a kind of agreement not to spend our time on ad hominem?
>
> If my characters have to act extremely precisely in order to live, I
> do not personally find myself capable of good roleplaying. Consider
> the situation where a PC spends a round to save the life of an
> honorable foe.
It's hardly advice of perfection because I didn't in any sense mean it
to reference actions of that type. To me, that isn't role-playing as
such- it's an action that may or may not be possible according the
rules and other effects outside the control of the player.
Instead what I was speaking of was your *wish* to save the life of that
honorable foe, the display of emotion when you decide to do so, or
decide not to do so. There is nothing to prevent you from doing that
mechanical or situationally. We see it all the time in fiction, and all
it takes in a game is the willingness of the players to spend a bit of
time on between combat actions.
To me, Role-playing is deciding what you wanted to do, if you do it,
and your reaction to your final choice. Not the action itself.
Certainly more difficult games mean less freedom of action- otherwise
they wouldn't be difficult.
> The whole party dies, becuase that PC's input could not
> possibly be spared for even one round. Speaking only for myself,
whatever
> satisfaction I might have felt in that small detail is swamped by the
> massive impact of failure, and *failure caused by my character*. If
> there are other players, I shrink under the impact of their pain and
> disappointment, and possibly their anger with me.
My group doesn't suffer the same problem. They have proven to be quite
willing to let their characters die for another who is acting in a
heroic manner- and will do so with much glee in fact. Non-heroic
characters don't normally get the same loyality, but I've seen it even
there.
But then again, I don't have script immunity, nor do I have your other
requirements from a game- many of which seem in direct conflict to my
own PoV.
Thus not having seen or dealt with the problem, I have no advice for
you although I can feel a degree of empathy and almost (but not quite)
put myself there.
> <sigh> What this conversation is doing for me is constantly rubbing
> salt in wounds. I wish I were a stronger person and able to shrug it
> off, but right now I'm not. I feel as though I'm being blamed
(personally
> and as a representative of a group) for the Decline of Modern
Roleplaying
> and probably the Loss of the Heroic Ideal, and it hurts.
I'm sorry you feel that way, especially over something that wasn't what
I meant. You and I have done this before, and I think it comes from a
lack of trust in the good intentions of the other. Too often we assume
the worse and carry wounds from elsewhere onto those who had nothing to
do with it- similar words inspire similar reaction. One would think
that you and I would know full well how different people use different
meanings without thought.
I feel terrible, because frankly you're the primary reason I have ever
read this group. Your mechanical insights are amoung the best I've ever
seen in relation to troublesome mechanics.
|
