An interesting article with a lot to think about. However, I have a quarrel with one statement – that off assigning third-person dialog and descriptions automatically to roll-playing. I have most of my playing and refereeing in rather small groups of three or four players. In order to have a band with enough diverse skills, attitudes, and such, it is necessary for each player to have two characters. It is also useful in that if a character is killed or otherwise indisposed, the player can continue to play while generating a replacement character, rather than going off into a corner to sulk and generate. This is particularly important in games such as Mythworld in which there is a detailed, three-dimensional (if rather unskilled in some areas) character from the start – something that takes a bit of time to generate – as opposed to rolling 3D6 six or seven times and giving it a name.

You dodge this somewhat by claiming that a roll-player can be just as immersed, and can use that statement in defense. However, the “in character” distinction is separate and distinct from role v. roll. Sure, a spectator can be immersed – interrupt any TV football game and see, but they are still just a spectator and not getting nearly as much out of it as a participant would. For games in which two characters per player are required, the only “in-character” dialog would require different voices – something few do well and often just sounds silly. Yeah, you can get used to anything, but why bother? One is not “in-character” when describing what the character is attempting to do – not even in LARP – which could get quite bloody if done totally in character!

I would disagree with the bonus points aspect since I don’t use them in Mythworld (or more accurately have them hidden in the rules system) but that is a matter of taste (de gustibus non est disputandam), so is not really a valid criticism.

This is not to deny the bulk of the article, it is just to say you drew the line in the wrong place.

Consider the classic SG-1 lineup from the Stargate TV show. One character is the conscience of the group, the diplomat, the philosopher, and the historian; another is the science geek; another is the strongest and best-trained warrior; and the fourth is the greatest leader amongst the four. They compliment each other, but in any given situation, one of the two will be in the position to make the greatest difference between success and failure.

This turns the bonus votes into a measure of achievement of potential, and defines one of the referee’s tasks into ensuring that each character has an equal opportunity to achieve their full potential in each session or scenario.

Sometimes I’ll even do this as a player — I’ll roll myself a will save to see if my character can bring themselves to do the ’sensible’ thing. :)
.-= Tennessee Leeuwenburg´s last blog ..Dice Pools vs Single Dice: Just Fiddle the Target Numbers =-.