Unpopular opinions go here

[overgeeked]

I think optimists and pessimists have things backwards.

Optimists generally think everything will be awesome and they're constantly disappointed because things are almost always worse than they expect, yet they're overly happy people.

Pessimists generally think everything will be terrible and they're constantly disappointed because things are almost always better than they expect, yet they're overly unhappy people.

Optimists should be the unhappy ones; pessimists should be the happy ones.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I don't play D&D, but players failing to fully utilize their PCs capabilities is not a GM problem, its a player problem. A player not knowing the rules after a reasonable number of sessions is going to be replaced.

Not everyone has the desire or the player resources to replace (let's call them "overly-casual") players. Heck, "not fully utilizing PC capabilities" is hardly the worst habit we have to put up with, either.

 

[overgeeked]

Not everyone has the desire or the player resources to replace (let's call them "overly-casual") players. Heck, "not fully utilizing PC capabilities" is hardly the worst habit we have to put up with, either.

I wish there were more casual and "overly-casual" players. It's the optimizers and the hardcore gamers that generally make things a nightmare.

 

[TheSword]

So sunk cost fallacy?

Sunk cost fallacy doesn’t really apply to TTRPGs imho. It’s for situations where the benefit to changing is obvious but people avoid it because they are already invested in something else.

In the case of RPGs a group often doesn’t switch because they are already invested AND the new system is an unknown quantity. They don’t know how their group will get on with it and it’s a lot of effort to try and find out. That’s not sunk cost it’s about risk v reward.

This is even more the case with thousands of obscure or tweaked games.

 

[Aldarc]

Sunk cost fallacy doesn’t really apply to TTRPGs imho. It’s for situations where the benefit to changing is obvious but people avoid it because they are already invested in something else.

In the case of RPGs a group often doesn’t switch because they are already invested AND the new system is an unknown quantity. They don’t know how their group will get on with it and it’s a lot of effort to try and find out. That’s not sunk cost it’s about risk v reward.

This is even more the case with thousands of obscure or tweaked games.

That added stipulation is actually not required to constitute a sunk cost fallacy.

 

[TheSword]

That added stipulation is actually not required to constitute a sunk cost fallacy.

Without that it isn’t a fallacy. It’s just a sunk cost.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Without that it isn’t a fallacy. It’s just a sunk cost.

Path dependency would probably be a more appropriate term.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I wish there were more casual and "overly-casual" players. It's the optimizers and the hardcore gamers that generally make things a nightmare.

Yeah, that's true. Though, I think both ends of that spectrum are hard to deal with. As with many things, there's a vast middle ground that works better than either end: Know the game well enough to play it without bogging it down for others, but also, don't bog it down for others by your vast knowledge of every little detail either.

I have a problem player right now who's kind of the worst of both (Though a good guy! I wouldn't want to kick him out or anything!) He doesn't know the rules of the game particularly well, but he wants to optimize his every turn for the most "perfect" thing he can do. He takes as long on each of his turns as the rest of the table combined, going through all his spells and humming and hawing as to which would be the best one.

I'm like, "Just pick one and cast it! It doesn't usually matter that much, in the end."

I'm going to keep working on trying to get him to "behave".

"Play nicely with others" (my #1 piece of advice in gaming) has a LOT of nuance, really.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I have a problem player right now who's kind of the worst of both (Though a good guy! I wouldn't want to kick him out or anything!) He doesn't know the rules of the game particularly well, but he wants to optimize his every turn for the most "perfect" thing he can do. He takes as long on each of his turns as the rest of the table combined, going through all his spells and humming and hawing as to which would be the best one.

I'm like, "Just pick one and cast it! It doesn't usually matter that much, in the end."

I know the type. They agonize for 45 minutes over the menu at the restaurant, and then they end up ordering the same cheeseburger that they always order.

 

[Gradine]

Please explain why ESB is the worst? Is it because of the Ewoks? I do not understand this hate.

Technically this is correct because ESB doesn't have Ewoks and is therefore the worst one of the OT.

It's still good, of course.