Talk:Player character

message: Looking at this paragraph:
In tabletop and live-action role-playing games, there is little advantage to be had by selecting consistently high attributes, as a gamemaster can make enemies and obstacles that the character must face more dangerous, or make the statistics irrelevant in other ways. More commonly, they will simply not allow the player to have high statistics. Also, role-playing can be about social interaction and imagination. Purely played on the basis of the numerical mechanics, it is a narrower activity, though many still enjoy this aspect. Many such players tire of this method of gameplay and either move on to more three-dimensional and realized characters or abandon the hobby entirely.
This seems somewhat unclear or at least unfocussed, only semi-relevant, poorly written and somewhat POV. I don't see how it's contributing anything of value, but I am reluctant to delete it outright without some sort of discussion, perhaps with an eye toward a revision.
Also, the last sentence is false, or at least no more true than the exact opposite statement would be, according to what little market research has been done; though it's a common belief among players of certain RPGs that people start out playing mostly mechanically and move on to "deeper" character-based play, these styles don't in fact have any correlation to how long someone has been playing, according to the study; apparently people change in the other direction just as often (and in fact, it is moving from less mechanical to more mechanical play that I have seen in several of my own circle of gamers, including myself).
:Agreed.  I've removed those paragraphs.  If they belong anywhere, it's on Attribute (role-playing games). Percy Snoodle 11:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fourth paragraph 

message: Come on you guys, original research like this is no good. Not only was most of this article not interesting in the least, but most of it (particularly the information of characters in role playing games) is covered in greater detail in the articles concerning NPCs and role-playing games. I appreciate that you fond your own little niche on wikipedia to pontificate on the nature of what a 'character' is, but it's getting a little existential for what should be a concise article on what the hell a player character is. Server overload costs money, you know.
I took the liberty of shortening it to a clean paragraph.  Johnnyfog 01:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the heck? 

message: I was directed here by clicking on a link "unlockable character", but the term "unlockable character" is not mentioned anywhere in the article. This is not very helpful as one is left guessing whether it is simply a synonym of "player character", or a special type of "player character", or some other related concept. It would be helpful if this was explained. 86.130.66.40 (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "unlockable character" 

message: nice article. can i include it?
* kotaku: Weirdest Soulcalibur VI Character Creations--PCistSchle (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: *The article doesn't seem to have any information about player characters in general. Though the way the player character is implemented in this specific game has found some media attention, I wouldn't include that information in this article. It's just too specific. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  kotaku news