This may be little more than a side note but I've noticed that in many RPG texts and discussions that the terms Player and Character are often used interchangably as if they were the same person. I think we all know this is patently false, but it bears repeating. I think that the reason for this is a all-too-commonly held belief that immersion is the "point" of all roleplaying. I was flipping through my copy of Champions the other day and a section on motivating characters caught my eye. It seems like there is lots of advice kicking around for motivating the characters but not much devoted to the player aside from getting into that role of the character in the first place.

I think that the main problem here seems to be that having someone simply agree to play is all it really takes to hook the player and from then on, you can hook the character. That there seems to be no need to address the Player's interests after they go "Oooh! Navy SEALS RPG!" and create a characters for this game because all of the player's interest in the game is embodied by and is filtered through the character.

This may be true for some, but certainly not all roleplaying.

Is there a point for discussion, here?

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Is there a point for discussion, here?

As with all my Standard Rants, I put this down here as a sort of shorthand to which I can refer people so as not to have to repeat the same ideas over and over (at which point they start to sound like Rants). The concepts of these rants are not ground-breaking, nor are they all that controversial. As such feel free to respond to them, or ignore them as you like.

Be nice.

Best,
Ron

Jack,

Yes, that's why I put that at the top of my post. So that people would know that it's for me to link to more than anything else. I woudn't have asked if you had said that this (or something like this) is what your post here is for.

"This may be little more than a side note" didn't convey that to me.

Mike