weak characters == really role playing

On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 21:48:08 cst "M. Jason Knight"
 writes:
> On 13 Dec 00, at 21:02, mastercougar@juno.com wrote:
> 
> >  Thanks. Now I don't have to go away.
> 
> Likewise.  So -- do /you/ find that roleplaying varies inversely 
> with 
> character power?
>
	I will assume, for the sake of communication, that you are being serious
with this question. 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? 

	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.

	Of course it could be argued that if one has a very powerful character
one does not have much role playing to do, because one can use one's
powers to resolve any and all conflicts with very little thought. So it
could be said that the more powerful one's character is, the less one has
to role play. However, I don't think that this is necessarily true, or
that the conclusion follows the assumption.

	In conclusion, to answer the question as it is stated, I'd have to say,
perhaps, but not necessarily.


-- 
Marc

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

weak characters == really role playing

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/

weak characters == really role playing

On 14 Dec 2000, at 11:11, M. Jason Knight wrote:

> 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 

Hey!  Tangent's been a perfectly good member, and no one's gone 
off on him or her.  Let's not be dragging innocents into this.


-- 
Karen J. Cravens (silver@phoenyx.net)
----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

weak characters == really role playing

On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 11:11:21 cst "M. Jason Knight"
 writes:
> What do you define as "powerful?"  High-points, high-stat, combat-
> oriented?

	That is of course a hard question to answer. High points, as in it takes
a lot of points to make the character is one way to compare the power
levels of characters. Combat orientation is, IMO, only valid in comparing
combat power levels. It is possible to have a very powerful character who
has zero combat abilities, but whose power level can effectively let him
win all combats. For example a character like Firestarter from the book
of the same title, is not a combat orientated character at all, but her
pyrokinetic powers do make her a formidable combatant. 
-- 
Marc

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

weak characters == really role playing

On 14 Dec 00, at 11:39, mastercougar@juno.com wrote:

>  That is of course a hard question to answer. High points, as in it
>  takes
> a lot of points to make the character is one way to compare the power
> levels of characters. Combat orientation is, IMO, only valid in
> comparing combat power levels. It is possible to have a very powerful
> character who has zero combat abilities, but whose power level can
> effectively let him win all combats. For example a character like
> Firestarter from the book of the same title, is not a combat
> orientated character at all, but her pyrokinetic powers do make her a
> formidable combatant. -- Marc

Am not following your terminology.  How can a formidable 
combatant not be a combat-oriented character?

----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

weak characters == really role playing

An example from The Princess Bride:
Inigo was a combat-oriented character, while Fizzik was a formidable 
combatant.  The character wasn't designed to be a fighter, but was capable 
simply by his physical nature.

-Bill
At 02:29 PM 12/14/2000 -0600, you wrote:
>On 14 Dec 00, at 11:39, mastercougar@juno.com wrote:
>
> >  That is of course a hard question to answer. High points, as in it
> >  takes
> > a lot of points to make the character is one way to compare the power
> > levels of characters. Combat orientation is, IMO, only valid in
> > comparing combat power levels. It is possible to have a very powerful
> > character who has zero combat abilities, but whose power level can
> > effectively let him win all combats. For example a character like
> > Firestarter from the book of the same title, is not a combat
> > orientated character at all, but her pyrokinetic powers do make her a
> > formidable combatant. -- Marc
>
>Am not following your terminology.  How can a formidable
>combatant not be a combat-oriented character?
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

weak characters == really role playing

On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Bill Hamilton wrote:

> An example from The Princess Bride:
> Inigo was a combat-oriented character, while Fizzik was a formidable
> combatant.  The character wasn't designed to be a fighter, but was capable
> simply by his physical nature.

>From a standpoint of the rules, I don't think there's a difference.  And
in "point-balanced" games, you really can't be a formidable combatant
without that being the thing your character is best at... which was
actually Fizzik's case.  He may not have trained for combat, but it was
still what he was best at.

And that is what I think most of us mean by combat-oriented... it's what
the character does best, sometimes at the exclusion of all else.

You can play games with combat-heavy characters that don't involve much
combat... you can take Superman and play a political or romantic campaign,
where Superman doesn't ever use his most "expensive" abilities, and still
have some fine roleplaying.  But I think Superman, by his nature, is still
a "combat-oriented" character from the standpoint of what he's best at.

>From a GM perspective, especially when using a point-limit system, I tend
to assume that whatever a character is best at is what the player wants to
see the most for that character.  Unless told otherwise, of course... I
mean, my cloth merchant was best at buying and selling cloth, but I told
the GM I wanted to see adventure.  (But those characters weren't
point-limited, so I could take skills in lots of areas... but he still
didn't get combat skills.)

--
Carl D Cravens (raven@phoenyx.net)                GMAST List Owner
    [   Phoenyx PBeM Roleplaying  --  http://www.phoenyx.net/   ]
C:\WINDOWS C:\WINDOWS\GO C:\PC\CRAWL

----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

weak characters == really role playing

<>

	I believe I stated that such a powerful pyrokinetic _could_ be
considered a formidable combatant. This is due to the fact that this
person could effectively destroy normal people with barely a thought.
However, this person would not necessarily be combat oriented, for combat
oriented implies that this person would train for combat. 

-- 
Marc

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

weak characters == really role playing

On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 mastercougar@juno.com wrote:

> However, this person would not necessarily be combat oriented, for combat
> oriented implies that this person would train for combat.

Depends on where you're viewing the orientation.  To me, a character who
excels at combat and little else is combat-oriented *in design*,
regardless of how much training or *inclination* toward combat the
character has.

My Superman example... Superman would prefer peace and that he never have
to enter combat.  But combat is still what he's best at because of his
natural ability, even if he never trains for combat.  If Superman's
character sheet lacks science, social and knowledge skills of note, if you
look at his character sheet and the things that are taking up the most
points are Super Strength, Super Invulnerability, Super Speed and Super
Flight... the character sheet is combat-oriented, even if "Avoids combat"
is one of his personality traits.  It's what the player spent the most
points on and what the player probably expects to use the most.  (Possible
exceptions noted, of course.)

--
Carl D Cravens (raven@phoenyx.net)                GMAST List Owner
    [ The Idea Factory: Helping GM's Create, One Idea at a Time ]
    [      http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/ideafactory.html     ]
We tend to judge others by their actions, ourselves by our intentions.
   -Dr. Ed Cole.

----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

weak characters == really role playing

<>

	Nope. Just because someone has a power the _can_ be used in combat
doesn't mean they are combat orientated. 
-- 
Marc

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

weak characters == really role playing

On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 mastercougar@juno.com wrote:

> 	Nope. Just because someone has a power the _can_ be used in combat
> doesn't mean they are combat orientated.

I think you missed my point... the point being the difference between
character and person and character as collection of abilities on the
character sheet in a point-limited game.  I'm not sure how to explain it
better, especially when you're being steadfastly negative.  I say, "to me
it means this" and you say "no, it means this."  Well, *to me* a
character, in terms of stats on the page, is combat-oriented when that's
what the character is best at, regardless of personality and preference of
the character as a "person".  But I don't think you're making that
differentiation between character-as-person and
character-as-character-sheet.

--
Carl D Cravens (raven@phoenyx.net)                GMAST List Owner
    [                     Trim Your Quotes!                     ]
I've got a chainsaw... what could go wrong?

----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

weak characters == really role playing

On 14 Dec 00, at 16:08, mastercougar@juno.com wrote:

>  I believe I stated that such a powerful pyrokinetic _could_ be
> considered a formidable combatant. This is due to the fact that this
> person could effectively destroy normal people with barely a thought.
> However, this person would not necessarily be combat oriented, for
> combat oriented implies that this person would train for combat. 

Got you.  "Combat oriented" refers to the character's outlook, 
rather than his design.

----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

weak characters == really role playing

<>
	
	Are you being this dense on purpose?

-- 
Marc

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

weak characters == really role playing

On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 mastercougar@juno.com wrote:

> < rather than his design.>>
>
> 	Are you being this dense on purpose?

Are you just trying to start a fight on purpose.

Okay, you've disagreed with me... saying that just because the character
is *good* at combat doesn't mean they're *oriented* toward combat.

Now you've disagreed with Jason, who basically just said what I
paraphrased above as your position.  So maybe I've got your position
wrong.

But, if combat-oriented doesn't mean "better at combat than anything else"
and it doesn't mean "combat-oriented in personal outlook", just what does
it mean?

I still maintain that Fizzik is a combat-oriented character, even if he
never *trains* at combat.  It's what he does best, it's what he's
*employed* to do in the story he appears in.  That he never trained in
combat is of no consequence, in my opinion... he's still a combat-oriented
character, both in design and in personal outlook.

--
Carl D Cravens (raven@phoenyx.net)                GMAST List Owner
    [                     Trim Your Quotes!                     ]
Error locating MAFIA.EXE - program not executed.

----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

Combat Oriented Characters

I thought a change of subject line might be nice

> I still maintain that Fizzik is a combat-oriented character, even if he
> never *trains* at combat.  It's what he does best, it's what he's
> *employed* to do in the story he appears in.  That he never trained in
> combat is of no consequence, in my opinion... he's still a combat-oriented
> character, both in design and in personal outlook.

In the case of Fezzik, I have to agree with Carl.  From the book, it's
obvious that the only thing Fezzik knows is fighting (his father started
hiring him out for exhibitions when he was only a child and a "mere 200
pounds").  His training was a lifetime of fighting.

For that matter, I see Superman in much the same light, because his
unwillingness to fight is part of the schtick, a narrative precursor to
violence as it were.  The fact is, the superheroic genre is about people
using superpowers, generally in violent ways.  I've been reading superhero
comics for well over half my life and I can't think of more than a handful
of published supers that I wouldn't consider combat oriented in some
respect.

Now, arguing for the other side, I can see where character traits and
personality DO have a place in determining whether or not a character is
"combat oriented".  A character with unconciously controlled powers, for
instance, or the aforementioned example of the the title character in
Firestarter both strike me as not being specifically combat-oriented, yet
could still be quite devastating in a scrap if their powers were triggered.
Such a trigger would, however have to be offset by the character's
unwillingness/inability to set it off, and (IMHO) a greater-than-average
vulnerability to harm on the part of the character.

Your own mileage may vary...

Theron
Houston

----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

Combat Oriented Characters

I'm missing something in this conversation.  A character can be effective in
combat without that being their main interest.  Sometimes a setting can require
a character be competent at combat just to get by.  Corwin is effective in
combat, Benedict is combat-oriented. :-)

BTW: http://www.ambercorwin.com/ :-)

Steve
-- 
http://www.stevebarr.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

Combat Oriented Characters

On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Steve Barr wrote:

> I'm missing something in this conversation.  A character can be
> effective in combat without that being their main interest.
> Sometimes a setting can require a character be competent at combat
> just to get by.  Corwin is effective in combat, Benedict is
> combat-oriented. :-)

As far as I've been concerned, this discussion hasn't been about the
character's *interests*, it's been about the character's *ability*.  As a
GM interested in managing the power levels of characters, I don't care how
interested the character is in combat or whether he gained his combat
ability through intense training or natural talent...  a character who can
kill ten men in unarmed combat is a character that can kill ten men in
unarmed combat, regardless of how interested he is in doing it.

When I look at a character sheet and the thing the character is best at is
combat, regardless of what the character is intersted in, I consider that
character to be combat-oriented.  It's what he's best at and unless the
player tells me otherwise, it's what the *player* is intersted in (having
voted for combat by spending the most points there in a point-limited
game).

--
Carl D Cravens (raven@phoenyx.net)                GMAST List Owner
    [                     Trim Your Quotes!                     ]
C:\WINDOWS C:\WINDOWS\GO C:\PC\CRAWL

----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

Combat Oriented Characters

Grad Wrote:
<>

	Go watch The Princes Bride. He's the big guy, played by ex wrestler
Andre the Giant.
-- 
Marc

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/