Please differentiate between player and character

[buzz]

I would love to se 6e separate players and characters in the game text, e.g., in examples of play.

So, instead of:

Andarra needs to roll 12- in order to deactivate the computer's security. Andarra rolls a 9, and succeeds.

The text would instead say:

Bob is playing Andarra. Bob needs to roll 12- in order for Andarra to deactivate the computer's security. Bob rolls a 9, and thus Andarra succeeds.

This may not seem like an important aspect of the text, but I really think it is. The typical commingling of players and their characters in game texts is just plain detrimental to the hobby.

[Balok]

Your point is semantically valid - but you have turned two sentences into three, and 17 words into 26, just to get rid of a fairly innocuous shorthand, IMO. Or is this a trick so you don't have to buy Steve a huge cookie?

[buzz]

Your point is semantically valid - but you have turned two sentences into three, and 17 words into 26, just to get rid of a fairly innocuous shorthand, IMO. Or is this a trick so you don't have to buy Steve a huge cookie?

You'd think so, but not really.

I honestly think it's an important distinction to make that many RPGs just fail to do. And, within the context of the rulebook, you can have a set group of "players" for use in examples so that you're not spending time introducing people every example.

[Steve Long]

Sorry, but I won't be doing that, buzz. Your approach is more logically correct, but it makes the text more cumbersome and I don't think it really adds anything. The reader knows what's going on.

[Kdansky]

Also, it's actually a good thing if players refer to their character as "me", because they roleplay rather differently.

I tell the thugs that they have to leave.
"Get out of here or I'll burn you to tiny bits of Ash!"

Now what's better?

[buzz]

Sorry, but I won't be doing that, buzz. Your approach is more logically correct, but it makes the text more cumbersome and I don't think it really adds anything. The reader knows what's going on.

Well, I'm sorry to hear that. I think a lot of gamer damage stems from the blurring of the line between player and character, and how this relates to the people at the game table.

At the very least, I would ask you to consider simply replacing "Andarra" with "Andarra's player" when you actually describe game mechanics. Ergo, my example sentence simply becomes:

Andarra's player needs to roll 12- in order to deactivate the computer's security. Andarra's player (or "he"/"she"/"they") rolls a 9, and succeeds.

[buzz]

Now what's better?

I'm not talking about what players do at the table, so I think that's moot.

[Pattern Ghost]

Well, I'm sorry to hear that. I think a lot of gamer damage stems from the blurring of the line between player and character, and how this relates to the people at the game table.

I think the concept of "gamer damage" is a logical fallacy. This term implies the games cause the damage, rather than the truth: Damaged people are sometimes drawn to RPGs.

The use of terms like "gamer damage" seems more detrimental to the hobby than example text.

I agree on the semantic validity of your proposal, however. I also agree with Steve that the curren way saves verbiage, and any non-damaged persons reading the text will understand what's going on.

[TSandman]

And if you take into account every examples in the book, it would add more than a few paragraph to the page count

[Killer Shrike]

What is "gamer damage" anyway? Is that like "freezer burn"? I've never met a gamer that would think "Andarra" was referring to a player and not a character. And even if they did, somehow, if they also get the idea that a 3d6 roll of 9 passes a 12- test then the sentence has served its purpose.

[Vondy]

In literary or academic usage buzz's position is more correct. However, usage rules are not universal to all forms of writing and a gaming manual is neither literary or academic. It is, essentially, a technical manual and steve's method is commonly accepted as correct usage for that style of writing, which is akin to the usage accepted for journalistic writing.

These distinctions are even recognized in dictionaries by profession grammarians (and their ilk), esp. if you look at the notes in unabridged dictionaries. My American Heritage dictionary (abridged) makes note of these distinctions and how their panel dealt with them in one of the introductory essays (yes, I read dictionaries when I find myself awake in the middle of the night).

Clear, succint writing will be key for 6e (the current edition is already the epitome of gravitas) and the current method is both clear and succint. More so than the proposed change.

Now, that said, welcome to Peeve City. I have a serious usage fit when people refer to players as characters or the opposite in their posts. While I admit many of my players have been characters in the past, they are not characters in the sense of being player characters, and it makes me cringe when people invert the terms. Remember all those urban myths about gamers who went insane and started to think they were their characters in the early eighties...

I always dismissed them out of hand, but to read some people's posts, the players aren't the problem... its the game-masters.

[Tonio]

I'd also like a switch to "Andarra's player needs to roll a 9...", but mostly because I'm a purist. I cringe every time people in my gaming group talk about "my player" when they mean "my character"... especially since that's every time they talk about their character. =/

[Balok]

"Gamer damage" reminds me of that little tract Jack Chick wrote about D&D decades ago, in which he made the claim that games (such as D&D) corrupted people by stealing their ability to tell the difference between reality and games. I don't believe this is true. Granted, my gaming friends do not have evident psychological problems, so I can't rule out the possibility that someone with such problems might have a problem. But, just like I don't advocate a ban on wheat bread because a few people have coeliac disease, I can't advocate verbiage designed to deal with a few people who might be out there and might have a problem. I think that any individuals that badly damaged are better off steering clear of an activity that could harm them.

[Derek Hiemforth]

The advantage I see in this idea is not so much in preventing "gamer damage," but rather in keeping things clear for new players. There's a lot of terminology that gets tossed around regarding players and characters (players, characters, player characters, non-player characters, PCs, NPCs, etc.), so it's easy for new folks to get confused. Wording that keeps things clear (without getting too verbose) would be welcome.

Having said that, I don't think 5ER or SK do a bad job of this today, so I think Steve is probably as aware of this as he needs to be...

[Sean Waters]

What is "gamer damage" anyway? Is that like "freezer burn"? I've never met a gamer that would think "Andarra" was referring to a player and not a character. And even if they did, somehow, if they also get the idea that a 3d6 roll of 9 passes a 12- test then the sentence has served its purpose.

Maybe a gamer called Andarra

While we are at it can we replace all those he/she/they pronouns with a single, invented word, like 'kweg' to avoid confusion?

Kidding...