Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Worlds of Design: A Worthy End?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9230879" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>No. You misunderstand. The former character can only exist in a setting where slavery <em>is already practiced</em>. What about a player who says, "I just...I find slavery really squicks me out, badly. I had some bad experiences as a child that contributed to that. Can we please play a game where there just isn't any slavery?" This preference cannot, even in principle, be mapped onto a character preference--because it is, at its root, about what kind of game one wants to play, not about how to play within a given game. Likewise, a player asking for the inclusion of political stuff at the outset is (implicitly) requesting that the GM avoid something like "this is a post-apocalyptic wasteland where settlements larger than 100 people essentially don't exist and nobody knows about much of anything more than 50 miles from where they currently live." That's a setting where political machinations are effectively impossible--so a player that wants a high-politics game is telling the GM not to do that. No character could possibly have that preference; only a player can.</p><p></p><p></p><p>But standing in opposition (or in preference!) to those setting conceits is fundamentally different from asking for those setting conceits to exist or not exist. That's my point here. There are game-preferences which cannot, even in principle, be mapped onto character preferences, yet they are still a critical part of playing a productive game.</p><p></p><p></p><p>But it does stop someone from playing if they find undead extremely squicky and specifically do not wish to play in any game where undead are a meaningful part of the game. You are presuming that the game conceits all necessarily already exist, and the players then must orient themselves toward them. I am talking about player requests regarding what conceits <em>do</em> exist in the first place. These cannot be mapped to character preferences.</p><p></p><p></p><p>But you have, here, already revealed why you do it: because it is a prerequisite for you to get access to the thing you do value, the fact that she is "a hella fine mage." You tolerate the part that you, personally, feel nothing about or even actively dislike, because it is a prerequisite for getting access to the thing you enjoy quite a lot.</p><p></p><p>Remove that element. Imagine if she wasn't a hella fine mage. Imagine that she were, say, a very run-of-the-mill fighter and you didn't really get any particular enjoyment out of playing that. Would you still endure the aspects which run counter to your general roleplaying preferences?</p><p></p><p>People <em>very</em> rarely do things if they find no value <em>whatsoever</em> in them. Sometimes, people will do things that have zero (or even negative) intrinsic value, if an extrinsic value is attached to them, some kind of incentive or benefit outside the action itself. E.g., a child may find negative intrinsic value in "doing chores," because chores aren't fun and eat up time, but with sufficient positive extrinsic value like an allowance, they may do those chores and even be enthusiastic about doing so. Frequently, people will do things that have positive intrinsic value, even if it's associated with negative extrinsic value. Anyone who has a hobby or interest with a stigma attached to it (e.g. the way "computer nerds" are still characterized in fiction today) is doing exactly that, they enjoy the hobby in and of itself, despite the extrinsic social cost of it. But if the extrinsic <em>and</em> intrinsic value are both negative in the person's eyes...they almost surely will not do that thing.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9230879, member: 6790260"] No. You misunderstand. The former character can only exist in a setting where slavery [I]is already practiced[/I]. What about a player who says, "I just...I find slavery really squicks me out, badly. I had some bad experiences as a child that contributed to that. Can we please play a game where there just isn't any slavery?" This preference cannot, even in principle, be mapped onto a character preference--because it is, at its root, about what kind of game one wants to play, not about how to play within a given game. Likewise, a player asking for the inclusion of political stuff at the outset is (implicitly) requesting that the GM avoid something like "this is a post-apocalyptic wasteland where settlements larger than 100 people essentially don't exist and nobody knows about much of anything more than 50 miles from where they currently live." That's a setting where political machinations are effectively impossible--so a player that wants a high-politics game is telling the GM not to do that. No character could possibly have that preference; only a player can. But standing in opposition (or in preference!) to those setting conceits is fundamentally different from asking for those setting conceits to exist or not exist. That's my point here. There are game-preferences which cannot, even in principle, be mapped onto character preferences, yet they are still a critical part of playing a productive game. But it does stop someone from playing if they find undead extremely squicky and specifically do not wish to play in any game where undead are a meaningful part of the game. You are presuming that the game conceits all necessarily already exist, and the players then must orient themselves toward them. I am talking about player requests regarding what conceits [I]do[/I] exist in the first place. These cannot be mapped to character preferences. But you have, here, already revealed why you do it: because it is a prerequisite for you to get access to the thing you do value, the fact that she is "a hella fine mage." You tolerate the part that you, personally, feel nothing about or even actively dislike, because it is a prerequisite for getting access to the thing you enjoy quite a lot. Remove that element. Imagine if she wasn't a hella fine mage. Imagine that she were, say, a very run-of-the-mill fighter and you didn't really get any particular enjoyment out of playing that. Would you still endure the aspects which run counter to your general roleplaying preferences? People [I]very[/I] rarely do things if they find no value [I]whatsoever[/I] in them. Sometimes, people will do things that have zero (or even negative) intrinsic value, if an extrinsic value is attached to them, some kind of incentive or benefit outside the action itself. E.g., a child may find negative intrinsic value in "doing chores," because chores aren't fun and eat up time, but with sufficient positive extrinsic value like an allowance, they may do those chores and even be enthusiastic about doing so. Frequently, people will do things that have positive intrinsic value, even if it's associated with negative extrinsic value. Anyone who has a hobby or interest with a stigma attached to it (e.g. the way "computer nerds" are still characterized in fiction today) is doing exactly that, they enjoy the hobby in and of itself, despite the extrinsic social cost of it. But if the extrinsic [I]and[/I] intrinsic value are both negative in the person's eyes...they almost surely will not do that thing. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Worlds of Design: A Worthy End?
Top