Unpopular opinions go here

[Reynard]

Why wouldn't the players be the ones to decide what's appropriate?

Obviously I mean this in context of a previously established game (we're playing Rappan Athuk or whatever).

 

[Jd Smith1]

A lot of old-school referees enforce that. If you can just chuck a character or set of stats you don’t like on a whim, why bother rolling. You’ll just cycle through until you get awesome stats and play that character.

This is why I only use a point-buy system.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Lol. Budweiser, terrible beer, great commercials.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Starfleet has always been, and always shall be, a military organization.

That's like saying D&D is a combat game!

 

[MGibster]

They look like that because they can act as a military organization at need, but again, take a look at what's actually going on in most Trek episodes: scientific expeditions, diplomatic missions, rescue operations, resupply missions.

There were plenty of Roman soldiers who spent more time building roads and on other construction projects than they did fighting but they were still in the army. Scientific exploration, rescue operations, resupply missions, etc., etc., are things our current military does today. When a disaster strikes the United States, we send in the National Guard to rescue people, distrbute food/supplies, and to help make critical repairs.

Kirk was sent to a courts martial for allegedly failing in his duty during a scientific mission. Kirk was prosecuted by a military officer, judged by a panel of captains, and they make it a point to let us know his lawyer was actually a civilian. The idea that Starfleet wasn't a military organization didn't pop up until after the series ended and it's because Roddenberry went off the deep end. TNG only improved when Roddenberry's influence began to wane.

 

[Emberashh]

Which part of "playing a game can never be roleplaying, in itself, it's just something you can do while roleplaying," contradicts what you've said?"

All of it. Its literally not what I said.

Likewise how are you not saying "attempting to play a game in the social pillar can't work?"

Because what you're saying here is nonsensical and, again, not what I said.

How can that not imply that no game can cover the social pillar?

They can't. Social mechanics do not work.

That has nothing to do with whether or not talking is a part of the game.

And lets be clear about what I mean by social mechanics; Im talking about trying to set and enforce rules for literally talking to your friends.

I am not referring to basic things like mechanizing NPC reactions (ie, does your Intimidate or Lie succeed), I am referring to trying to make the actual conversation between you, the actual, real life human person and another actual, real life human person, a structured, rule enforced thing segregated from any real, natural conversation.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I am not referring to basic things like mechanizing NPC reactions (ie, does your Intimidate or Lie succeed), I am referring to trying to make the actual conversation between you, the actual, real life human person and another actual, real life human person, a structured, rule enforced thing segregated from any real, natural conversation.

I can see why i was confused. "Social" has come to refer to the social or interaction pillar, as distinct from combat & exploration, which of course, includes, using skills or abilities like intimidate, charm, insight, and so forth.
Not, like, socializing at the table. (??)

I mean, I've seen players try to declare or call for skill checks against eachother, but that's fraught on the same level as PvP.

 

[Thomas Shey]

There were plenty of Roman soldiers who spent more time building roads and on other construction projects than they did fighting but they were still in the army. Scientific exploration, rescue operations, resupply missions, etc., etc., are things our current military does today. When a disaster strikes the United States, we send in the National Guard to rescue people, distrbute food/supplies, and to help make critical repairs.

They don't, however, apparently spend the majority of their time doing that. They spend most of it on patrols and manuevers. Starfleet, on the other hand, seems to spend the vast majority of time on scientific, diplomatic and population support missions.

Its just not analogous.

Kirk was sent to a courts martial for allegedly failing in his duty during a scientific mission. Kirk was prosecuted by a military officer, judged by a panel of captains, and they make it a point to let us know his lawyer was actually a civilian. The idea that Starfleet wasn't a military organization didn't pop up until after the series ended and it's because Roddenberry went off the deep end. TNG only improved when Roddenberry's influence began to wane.

I've not argued that Starfleet isn't structurally military, and that sort of discipline is absolutely a sign of that--because when it operates as a military it needs to have that structure. I still stand by the opinion that an organization that does operations that would be done by other governmental organizations the majority of the time is not a military group in the sense we think of it.

 

[Lanefan]

Sharp line no, but there is a line, and that line makes up the difference between a cohesive experience and an incoherent one.

I would even go as far as to say its the same fundamental problem I noted previously about integrating mechanics.

The key value of all games as an artistic medium is that they leverage interactivity in a way other mediums can't to reach the evocations the work is aiming for.

Now, Roleplay is interactive, no doubt, but it isn't mechanical and fundamentally can't be when you get down to it (hence why social mechanics always tend to fail), and without mechanics, you're not actually creating a game. At best, you'll only ever have a book of prompts, which is fine if you're honest about what it is, which isn't a game.

Reading this as written, you seem to be saying that FKR isn't a game at all; which I think might prove a rather hot take among some here. (disclaimer: I've no horse in that race, merely making an observation)

A game can be defined as nothing but its mechanics, and many are; but IMO RPGs can be - and are - defined as being more than just their mechanics. This is what makes them somewhat unique among game types.

Edit: this also relates to earlier opinion of mine that people are way too obssessed with and try way too hard to tell stories, while neglecting the value of the game as a medium to do so.

Mechanics can generate stories all on their own, without needing to force and hamfist the narrative.

Stories can also be generated without the use of any real mechanics, or by a mix of mechanical and non-mechanical means (the mix varying among different RPGs, but most use a mix).

So in that light, I would judge Story First/Story Now type stuff as being a fundamental misuse of the medium, which yet again loops back to my comments on innovation and how mechanics are being held back. Better mechanics will do more for a game to tell stories than trying to force it will.

I'm in no way a fan of story-now play but even I'll defend it here: you're doing it a huge disservice, in that stories don't have to be forced in story-now play any more than they do in a hard-coded mechanics-first RPG; and I'd posit forcing a story (as opposed to letting it emerge organically) runs counter to the ideals of both.

 

[Lanefan]

I can roleplay a Ranger all day long. I can't play a Ranger unless the game allows that choice to have a real meaning.

When I'm free-roleplaying a Ranger in conversation with his party, I'm playing a Ranger.

When I'm rolling dice to see if said Ranger hit the Beholder, I'm playing a Ranger.

When I use a Ranger's direction sense to tell us which way's north, I'm playing a Ranger.

The "playing a Ranger" piece is exactly equal in all three cases.