Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;702334I'd like more evidence presented either way before we start a crazy witchhunt between the immersionistas and the true roleplayers.

I'm on the job, BSJ.

I'm genuinely curious myself, I'm guessing the whole concept might be quite new to many people, even many experienced gamers.

Quote from: The Traveller;702341I'm on the job, BSJ.

I'm genuinely curious myself, I'm guessing the whole concept might be quite new to many people, even many experienced gamers.

I'm returning to RPGs after years of not playing them. I'm just kind of following along now, taking notes. Thanks for your interest, guys.

:eek:
Very good...this should be interesting.

Anyway...unrelated to that I tend to not like personality 'mechanics' much myself - or even social rules like Diplomacy - if its difficult for supercomputers to predict human behaviour, what chance do you have of doing it with a few pages of social rules?  A brief descriptor like 'curious' or 'lecherous' is helpful, but even stuff like that can be too broad - curious might mean a character does risky things to find out information that's interesting, but for one character that might be magic and another its hot gossip about their neighbours, while lecherous perhaps need a PCs target defined (blonde, beardy or elven?).

Really building an alternate 'personality' beyond just surface traits seems like it would be very difficult since its hard to understand how differently other people's minds function. For a while I experimented a bit with assigning PCs Enneagram types (fringe New Age personality system) when I was into that sort of thing. That gives a biggish list of things including psychological defense mechanisms, focal point of attention, primary mode of processing information in a Jungian sense (Extraverted feeling, introverted feeling, extroverted sensation, etc.), NLP type (Auditory/Kinaesthetic/Visual), etc..um, not sure the info ever really came in handy in a game, though.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;702334I'd like more evidence presented either way before we start a crazy witchhunt between the immersionistas and the true roleplayers.

I'm usually pretty careful to state my preferences as just that.  No value judgements here.  In fact, I *deliberately* phrased my initial comment there so as to show value of both sides.

Besides, why bother hunting witches?  All you need to find them is a duck and a scale.

I moved my response from the poll thread to this one so a conversation about this wouldn't get started in the poll thread (to keep it about poll results.)

Quote from: The Traveller;702367I don't think I can edit polls after they're up, but you could probably shoehorn it in under the first or last options in any case.

Actually, I think no. 3 covers it, now that I think about it.

I'm thinking along the lines of the reasons people play various characters -- fantasy fulfillment vs roleplaying challenge. In the first case, I remember this guy who always wanted to play a dwarf because he wanted to be dwarf-like. And then I also remember people playing characters different from them for the challenge, like an actor taking up a difficult role. Is this related to the poll? If not, please ignore.

Quote from: shawnhartnell;702371I'm thinking along the lines of the reasons people play various characters -- fantasy fulfillment vs roleplaying challenge. In the first case, I remember this guy who always wanted to play a dwarf because he wanted to be dwarf-like. And then I also remember people playing characters different from them for the challenge, like an actor taking up a difficult role. Is this related to the poll? If not, please ignore.

This is one of the reasons I think guidelines like traits can be really helpful in getting people to branch out a bit and step off the well beaten trail.

Most players, unless they also happen to be professional fiction writers, will tend to reach first for something they know and recognise, a stereotype or a broad categorisation like good or evil. They can't really be expected to come up with a half dozen random character traits in chargen, it's one of those areas where a system should provide inspiration.

I'd always encourage players to randomly roll their traits and just run with them, good and bad, while simultaneously having the option to choose traits instead if they'd rather play a stereotype. In my experience trying to step into a random personality, while a bit more challenging, leads to a far richer game experience for everyone. The same would apply to NPCs as well; things just get a bit more three dimensional, a bit less predictable.

It's the difference between a show like Twin Peaks and say your average Saturday afternoon series. Lots of people love Saturday afternoon shows, I do too, the predictability can be comforting, but there's much more that can be explored in terms of how the players interact with the setting.

I like traveller's approach.

Its kind of like baby steps becuase after a while those traits come out of the character but anything that helps encourage roleplaying is a good addition to the game.

I think you can broadly use allignment to do something similar if you use allignment as a personality type so allignment is more like a zodiac sign or a tarot signifer or a Belbin role or something. But a simple list works just as well if not better.

Quote from: jibbajibba;702375Its kind of like baby steps becuase after a while those traits come out of the character but anything that helps encourage roleplaying is a good addition to the game.

Yeah I seriously considered putting a traits box at the top of every page on the character sheets, but then again it's really important not to force the issue no matter how desireable it is. For the same reason I don't expand on character traits in any way - things work a lot better when the player takes their traits and interprets them, mixes them up as they see fit.

If you're playing a game that's all about people interacting with each other in a more social or personal setting, then personality traits are going to be more important than physical strength.

I certainly hope that people can play their character as a separate entity to themselves. i don't want to sit at the same table as someone with the morals of a kleptomaniac thief or a pitiless assassin.

Quote from: Adric;702398If you're playing a game that's all about people interacting with each other in a more social or personal setting, then personality traits are going to be more important than physical strength.

I would say its more important in every setting.
I have argued before that the wizard is just a weapon the fighter uses to overcome certain opponents...

QuoteI certainly hope that people can play their character as a separate entity to themselves. i don't want to sit at the same table as someone with the morals of a kleptomaniac thief or a pitiless assassin.

You already are

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;702353A brief descriptor like 'curious' or 'lecherous' is helpful, but even stuff like that can be too broad - curious might mean a character does risky things to find out information that's interesting, but for one character that might be magic and another its hot gossip about their neighbours, while lecherous perhaps need a PCs target defined (blonde, beardy or elven?).

Therein lies one of the strengths of using single word broad descriptors - the character becomes unique through the player's interpretation and understanding of the term. It mightn't fit the dictionary description or it might be an echo of an experience the player had with someone they associate with that trait, but it helps to provide the scaffolding on which a new personality can grow.

Anyhow looks like the results of the poll are in - interesting as you say! There's no right way to roleplay of course, the different viewpoints are eye opening for me... it's just one of those things I'd never thought about really.