CaptainPatch wrote:krellen wrote:Woolfe wrote:If you want to play it that way, sure. Personally I have no problem seperating my characters from each other.
While I'm generally of the opinion that being a GM is something that can be learned and is not inherent to anyone, this may be one of the defining skills that separates true GMs from the still-learning. Having been a game master for several decades now, the skill of holding disparate (and often conflicting) character personalities in my head comes close to second nature for me now. For those with less experience doing so, which likely includes all gamers from the 90s on with no table-top experience behind them, I could see how this could be an alien concept, and thus why those of us arguing for it might be hard to understand.
^^This^^. It explains why it seems that the definition of "roleplaying" differs from generation to generation. I grew up with "roleplaying" meaning to try to figuratively put yourself in the character's shoes and play as _him_, complete with foibles and weaknesses, as well as strengths and talents. Such as, if the character has only a 5 IQ/INT, then try to be that dumb (as opposed to behaving like he has _my_ IQ). More modern gamers seem to believe that "roleplaying" = "What would _I_ do in that situation?"
Thats what roleplaying is as far as I am concerned. The idea of extending it to multiple characters is not to me that complex. But in the past I have been a GM, and I have played in several Roleplaying games at once. I also played a lot of Wargames, that whilst not technically requiring me to give personality to characters, I often did, and would play them as their personality dictated.