Indeed, both were superb.swordnshield wrote:...but it's aided by other aspects of the game, notably the descriptive writing and amazing music (the visuals also play a part; mostly as a template for your imagination to expand on).
I don't see it that way. TNO woke up in a mortuary, and was covered in tattoos and scars; the amnesia makes that even worse. One can [usually] only speculate on that, not identify with it.Basically what I'm trying to say is that because TNO and the player enter the game with the same information (not much), in order to properly role-play him, you have to role-play yourself in that situation. Obviously the outcome of this is that he might not act like who you are in the real world, but its more of a reflection of yourself than a different person altogether. I know I wouldn't be who I am today if my first memory was waking up on a cold stone slab in the Mortuary.
The point of roleplaying is to experience something other than one's own point of view. A character whose choices are not based on one's own sensibilities and/or limitations.
If I were roleplaying an honest character who respects people, then that character would not explore and loot every house they encounter; would not steal the magical +5 club of asswhopping from the owner's display case; to replace their 'stick'; because they would not do that. If however I was roleplaying a thief without those ethical constraints... They might plausibly go on a thieving spree; (even chaotic good thieves might justify using the loot to protect the township), but if I had a Paladin (of good standing) in the party, I would never have them accompany the thief as protector on their burgling adventure. The thief would be going alone, and die if they got caught and could not escape. If it happened that the thief ran past the paladin and was defended by them, then I might choose that the paladin leave the group if the thief does not.
It's not about my own preference, it's how would these people act and react to the events of the game. How do their attitudes and abilities serve them on their adventures. A high intelligence PC ~with low Wisdom might trust someone when they should not ~even if I can see the outcome; they might not. In one RPG I know of, the PC can hire an evil cleric who promptly walks them into a trap. But if the PC stats imply they are the gullible sort, they why should they not walk into the trap and get killed? [Start a new game with new PCs, perhaps not so unwise as the last ones.]
*Incidentally: This is why RPGs need random and percentage based elements to the events, skills and abilities of the PCs and the NPCs; to cause unexpected differences in the outcomes of scripted and player initiated events that might otherwise remain static... causing the same extrapolation of the PCs and their reactions. People freak out and reload when their thief gets caught stealing, or when something they are chasing escapes. Someone trying to pick a lock in a game that only allows you to try if you are assured success, can never have problems and run out of time with repeated attempts; and the guard comes back, and them have to hide until they get another chance later; nor do they get the thrill of trying one last time [success or capture]; perhaps just making into the door as the guard rounds the corner.
I don't see this that way either. Custom characters are certainly a popular option for PnP RPGs, but they are not a core aspect of roleplaying. The GM/DM can simply assign preset characters for the session. What matters is playing out the personality, not designing it first.This is different than the normal take on role-playing in tabletop and cRPGs, where you role-play a character whose personality and traits you conceive of beforehand, whether they're similar to you or wildly different.