[MUD-Dev] Re: MUD-Dev digest, Vol 1 #163 - 25 msgs

[Travis Casey]

Friday, July 21, 2000, 9:49:38 AM, Dave Rickey <daver at mythicgames.com> wrote:
> From: Travis Nixon <tnixon at avalanchesoftware.com>

>>I guess the point I'm trying to make is that you can only take "in
>>character" so far.  There are simply many things that require player
>>"skill", and I think by discounting the possibility of using any of those,
>>you're throwing out entire universes of possibilities.  Social climbing is
> a
>>good example of this.  It's very easy for somebody to "roleplay" a
>>personality similar to their own.  I would venture a guess that most people
>>that play computer games are capable of this.  It takes quite a different
>>breed to roleplay a personality that's completely different.  So in a world
>>of politics, you're simply going to have people that don't go anywhere,
>>because they don't have the experience or the knowledge to roleplay a
>>position of power.  So in the idea of "keeping true to roleplay", should we
>>completely throw away ideas of political systems?
>>
>     This is the Gnome Illusionist "problem".  At RPGA events, people who
> play funny, memorable, eccentric characters always seem to win the awards
> for best RPG'er.  The fact is, you can't play such a character unless you
> are innately a funny, eccentric, memorable character yourself, which
> supposedly would mean you were a *worse* roleplayer, you were just playing
> yourself with a wierd accent.  The perfect rendition of the morose, brooding
> warrior that has a grudge against one or two of the party-members is lucky
> if they don't get kicked out of the group.

Actually, I've seen people who aren't funny and eccentric as their
"normal" self play those sorts of characters very well.  One purpose
of roleplaying is to let yourself express other sides that you don't
normally show.

The real problem is that "best roleplayer" awards hinge on two things:
First, roleplaying in such a way that you're noticed.  If you're
roleplaying a wallflower or a tactiturn character, you're not likely
to get noticed by the other players.  Second, other people have to
*like* your roleplaying.  People are more likely to vote for someone
they got along with during the game than someone they argued with --
even if the argument was in character.

When you game with someone on a regular basis, it can be easier to
appreciate their roleplaying of a taciturn or hostile character,
because you've had chances to see them when they're *not* roleplaying
that character.  At an event, it's easy to assume that someone who's
roleplaying a hostile character is simply a hostile person.

>     The game system can't make a "general" that other players will follow
> into battle.  I "played" a taciturn, apolitical, highly effective trainer of
> 'Mech pilots in MPBT.  It wasn't a roleplaying game, yet I don't know how
> you can call what I was doing anything else.

The system can't, but the other players can, if they're willing to.
However, that requires finding *lots* of good roleplayers who can look
past what someone actually says to what their *character* is like,
which is bordering on impossible.

--
       |\      _,,,---,,_    Travis S. Casey  <efindel at earthlink.net>
 ZZzz  /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_   No one agrees with me.  Not even me.
      |,4-  ) )-,_..;\ (  `'-'
     '---''(_/--'  `-'\_)   





_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev