Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaraxes
This is the thing that troubles me about some of the questions. The "agree" sense of the questions might be well aimed at a particular style, but then the "disagree" sense is assigned to some other one style when it may not be that strong of an indicator. For example, trying to dissect my own results:
[#3 TT vs MA: Accomplishing party objectives trumps role-playing opportunities.] Going along with the party is a CG trait, as well as TT. "Accomplishing objectives" is usually a lot like "finishing the story", which would be a ST trait.
|
Indeed. Maybe something like “Doing what is tactically sound sound trumps role-playing opportunities.”?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaraxes
[#5. MA vs BK: My characters need a fully-realized, personal, in-game motivation to fight.] ST as well as MA is likely to agree.
|
I agree “fully-realized” and “in-game” match ST and a well as MA, but “personal” is pretty unique to MA. I’m thinking in need to reword this question so the “personal” aspect is prominent and the more ST elements are minimized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaraxes
[12. SP vs BK: All my characters approach combat situations in the same way.] Well, no; when they're different classes/roles/skillsets, they pretty much have to approach combat differently. That's not "BK", just a result of rules systems.
|
My interpretation (correct me if I’m wrong) is that a SP will (at least try to) find a way to play his/her go-to character regardless of the genre/rules/whatever. A BK will find a way to kick the most butt regardless of the genre/rules/whatever. That’s what I’m trying to get at with this question. At this point, I’m not inclined to change it; I welcome arguments to the contrary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaraxes
[25. CG vs MA: My characters are pretty much just me, but with special abilities.]Personally I just plain dislike the "stat yourself and throw the mundanes into the setting" premise. I like the escapism and power fantasy. If I wanted to be me, I can do that without an RPG. So, this question draws a "never" from me. The disagree here doesn't seem to me to point to MA. Even the agree doesn't seem to be CG in particular. The psychodrama types might be MA, Billy Badass might think his BK is "pretty much just me", or the ST is just as happy with characters that are "just me" because he can still develop the plot.
|
My reasoning was that CG wouldn’t learn or care about the rules enough to really create and role-play a character that was much different from themselves. There may be a better way to separate the CG from the MA; I haven’t come up with any and am open to suggestions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaraxes
[38. TT vs SP: I’m willing to play any character that is integral to achieving the campaigns goals.] At least as much CG as TT, I'd think. Also a fair component of ST, because you can't tell much of a story if the party is dysfunctional and inept. (Better be a comedy, or it'll be short and unsatisfying for more than just the STs.)
|
Good points. How about “The characters I play are the most integral to solving the campaign’s problems.”?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaraxes
[40. SP vs TT: Since I play the same type of character, everyone knows what to expect from me.]Again, any non-SP style fits, not just TT. "Type" is also vague. The stereotypical MA that always has to have the angsty conflicted character would be "the same type", even if it changes from swashbuckler to vampire to paladin "types”.
|
Maybe something like “Since I play the same type of character, everyone knows how I’ll deal with any problem.”?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaraxes
[41. ST vs MA: My satisfaction comes from my character's involvement within the larger story.]That seems pretty directly pointed at ST. But you might disagree for any number of reasons which don't point to MA. My satisfaction comes from exciting combat (BK); my satisfaction comes from levelling (PG); my satisfaction comes from being with the group (CG). Any answer but "always" is building up weight for MA that may not be justified.
|
How about something like “My satisfaction comes from the larger story, not my character’s story arc.”