Quote from: Sacrosanct;740047Round these parts, we call this significant investment "role-playing".

Role-playing is hard.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740047Round these parts, we call this significant investment "role-playing".

It's also independent of the class.  

It's the old fallacy, "The rules are brilliant because I rewrote them to suit my tastes."  No.  The rules sucked.  Your input was the portion that had merit.

Quote from: Benoist;740057Role-playing is hard.

Apparently.  I've played dozens of fighters over the years (one of my favorite classes) and the only two that I played almost the exact same were father and son both named Merdock.  Other than that, each one had unique personalities, motivations, and style of play.

Quote from: Gabriel2;740058It's also independent of the class.  

.

Not really.  The class gives you a foundation for your role-playing.  After all, you won't role-play a magic user the same as you would a fighter.

And to head off the inevitable (not necessarily by you, but by someone), yes, you do role-play in combat.  Or at least, you should.  The game doesn't make you stop role-playing and shift into boardgame tactical once a combat encounter starts.  Or at least it shouldn't if it wants to call itself a true role-playing game.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740060Not really.  The class gives you a foundation for your role-playing.  After all, you won't role-play a magic user the same as you would a fighter.

And to head off the inevitable (not necessarily by you, but by someone), yes, you do role-play in combat.  Or at least, you should.  The game doesn't make you stop role-playing and shift into boardgame tactical once a combat encounter starts.  Or at least it shouldn't if it wants to call itself a true role-playing game.

Nonetheless there is some validity in Gnomeworks position.
If you say that non character stuff is a wash between all classes after all all classes can be role-played. Then the mechanics differentiate.
Now I am very much from the roleplay school but I can't deny the logic.

Quote from: jibbajibba;740061Nonetheless there is some validity in Gnomeworks position.
If you say that non character stuff is a wash between all classes after all all classes can be role-played. Then the mechanics differentiate.
Now I am very much from the roleplay school but I can't deny the logic.

Well of course you aren't limited to how you roleplay a certain class, but they are in fact not independant either.  That's all I'm saying.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740063Well of course you aren't limited to how you roleplay a certain class, but they are in fact not independant either.  That's all I'm saying.

Tenser might disagree

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740059Apparently.  I've played dozens of fighters over the years (one of my favorite classes) and the only two that I played almost the exact same were father and son both named Merdock.  Other than that, each one had unique personalities, motivations, and style of play.

But what was his AC, thaco and number of attacks?  

Quote from: jibbajibba;740064Tenser might disagree

Even Tenser didn't rush into melee battle fists-a-flailing every time it came up.  And certainly you can't deny that as a general rule, players will play a magic user differently than a fighter from a role-playing perspective.

While you could take the personality of Conan and play a wizard that way, the vast majority of players, who want to play a PC with such a personality as Conan, would play a fighter-type class.

Quote from: Bill;740065But what was his AC, thaco and number of attacks?  

And?  None of those things factored into the fact that with Merdock (both), I played them as front line defenders, always trying to protect the weaker classes and using formations and tactics when I could, and with Orion, he would just bull rush into battle and let the other PCs figure out what they wanted to do on their own.  Or Thonolen, who preferred to use a bow before resorting to melee as a last resort.  The PCs could have similar AC, THAC0, and # of attacks, but they played very differently.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740066Even Tenser didn't rush into melee battle fists-a-flailing every time it came up.  And certainly you can't deny that as a general rule, players will play a magic user differently than a fighter from a role-playing perspective.

While you could take the personality of Conan and play a wizard that way, the vast majority of players, who want to play a PC with such a personality as Conan, would play a fighter-type class.

Now here we differ I think.
First off I rarely play fighters that rush into battle fists flying.
Secondly I could totally see a MU and a fighter played with the same personality just with different weapons.
Take a military tactician character. I can see that working as a fighter or a wizard.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740067And?  None of those things factored into the fact that with Merdock (both), I played them as front line defenders, always trying to protect the weaker classes and using formations and tactics when I could, and with Orion, he would just bull rush into battle and let the other PCs figure out what they wanted to do on their own.  Or Thonolen, who preferred to use a bow before resorting to melee as a last resort.  The PCs could have similar AC, THAC0, and # of attacks, but they played very differently.

That was kind of Bill's point Sac:)

Quote from: jibbajibba;740068Now here we differ I think.
First off I rarely play fighters that rush into battle fists flying.
Secondly I could totally see a MU and a fighter played with the same personality just with different weapons.
Take a military tactician character. I can see that working as a fighter or a wizard.

I think it bears repeating:

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740063Well of course you aren't limited to how you roleplay a certain class, but they are in fact not independant either.  That's all I'm saying.

Also, let me rephrase this:

As a general rule, if a player wants to play a PC with the personality of Conan, Lancelot, or Fafhrd, what types of classes will those players choose?

And no, your exception does not override the general rule, so I'll stop you before you post that again.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740070I think it bears repeating:



Also, let me rephrase this:

As a general rule, if a player wants to play a PC with the personality of Conan, Lancelot, or Fafhrd, what types of classes will those players choose?

And no, your exception does not override the general rule, so I'll stop you before you post that again.

So Conan and Fafhrd are thieves and Lancelot is a Paladin?

I know what you are saying except that I would argue that you are conflating personality of the PC with what actions you want to take in game.
Take the personality type of a cautious idealist who wants to improve the lot of the poor serfs he sees in the land about his family estate. That is a good little personality it has a nice scope you can see why there might be adventure hooks backstory all sorts of things. What class is the guy? well meh who knows. I guess that depends on his stats. If we talk 2e I could see him as a bard using a herald or skald or a gallant, maybe a fighter or a paladin or a cavalier, or a wizard who learns his magic through his tutor using his father's extensive library? A priest of the local deity etc etc etc .....

So I would probably separate the characters personality from the way they play in game.

I think you're trying to dance a dance and refuse to admit that as a general rule, a player who chooses to play a fighter will role-play that character differently than they would if they were playing a magic user, outside of defined class features.

Also, personality is what drives behavior.  Come on now.