On 13 Dec 00, at 22:47, mastercougar@juno.com wrote: > I will assume, for the sake of communication, that you are being > serious > with this question. Quasi-serious. I'm sorry, I didn't realize you had missed that which has gone before. We had been, before someone went off on a crackhead tangent, discussing the equivalency hypothesized in the subject line. Others had put their two cents in, I was soliciting yours in a feeble attempt to drag the subject back on topic. >I appreciate that you put the word you between > slashes and assume that means you are asking my opinion, and are not > asking me to make a statement of fact. Let me see if I understand the > question correctly, for I am not sure, due to the wording. Are you > asking me if I feel that the more powerful a character is, the less > that the player controlling said character is role playing, as opposed > to war gaming? That seemed to be the premise in the initial assertion (which wasn't, I should point out, made by me). But if you have another spin to put on it, by all means, don't limit yourself to what you think I'm asking. > I find this a very strange question. And very hard to satisfactorily > answer it. First of all, how are you defining the term role playing > here? Are you saying that someone who plays a powerful character is > unable to play role? To me, it would seem self evident that to role > play properly(sic) you must accurately portray the character you have > to play. So if you have a very powerful character and you play this > character as such, then you are role playing. What do you define as "powerful?" High-points, high-stat, combat- oriented? ---------------------------------------------------------------- GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
