Thread Closed
(08-21-2015, 12:45 PM)Intaki Wrote: So you would argue that the prime determinant of successful and well-played character is the approval of a plurality/majority?
Not entirely, but certainly that's the bar for entry into subjective and comparative traits. Â Scott could actually be a TERRIBLY played character, he could only ever be used as a comedian but could then never grow or develop, as he's stunted. Â We don't know that from the scenario you painted.
However, the question of whether his character is "witty", yeah, that's up to the audience. Â It's like saying you're "funny". Â You can try to be funny, but it's up to the audience to decide if you're actually funny. Â Similarly, you can try to play a witty character, but it isn't up to you to say if the character is actually witty, that's a function of the audience. Â It's your responsibility as the player to get that across.
I certainly don't believe the opposite to be true. Â If one person thought Scott was funny out of 10 and most simply put him on ignore because his jokes aren't funny, not only is the character not "funny" no matter how much the player wants him to be, he's probably not funny because the player isn't really that funny.
And you know what, not everyone's funny. Â That's okay. Â But you can't fake laughs at a character who isn't funny just because you're told the character is a comedian and he's being played as funny.