Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 7455988" data-attributes="member: 6775031">Players rarely make perfectly optimal choices, because they don't have all of the information, and there are inherent limits to the rationality of their intellect. Often, they won't realize their mistakes until it's too late to do anything about them, if they ever end up realizing them at all.FATE uses meta-game mechanics to try and align player goals with character flaws (e.g. your character wants a drink, and you want a fate point, so you're both in agreement about what you should do next). The problem is that, in doing so, it causes the flaw to actually become a strength. It's no longer a problem, that your character wants a drink, even though that would normally impair them; since giving in to the flaw causally generates fate points, it means you're actually stronger when you need to be, because you gave in. It means that so-called flaws are actually benefits, due to meta-game reasons that your character cannot possibly understand. It means that you shouldn't send Captain America out on an important mission, because he won't make enough mistakes along the way for him to succeed in the end; instead you should send Gomer Pyle, who is guaranteed to fail enough that he will eventually come out on top. It's just shenanigans from a causality standpoint.If I want to play a flawed character in D&amp;D, then I can do that. I will choose to make the wrong choices, because I'm role-playing a flawed character, and that's what they would do. Rewarding that choice should not be necessary.That's not a very nice thing to say about Squirrel Girl.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Crimson Binome, post: 7455988, member: 6775031"] Players rarely make perfectly optimal choices, because they don't have all of the information, and there are inherent limits to the rationality of their intellect. Often, they won't realize their mistakes until it's too late to do anything about them, if they ever end up realizing them at all. FATE uses meta-game mechanics to try and align player goals with character flaws (e.g. your character wants a drink, and you want a fate point, so you're both in agreement about what you should do next). The problem is that, in doing so, it causes the flaw to actually become a strength. It's no longer a [I]problem[/I], that your character wants a drink, even though that would normally impair them; since giving in to the flaw [I]causally[/I] generates fate points, it means you're actually [I]stronger[/I] when you need to be, because you gave in. It means that so-called flaws are [I]actually[/I] benefits, due to meta-game reasons that your character cannot possibly understand. It means that you shouldn't send Captain America out on an important mission, because he won't make enough mistakes along the way for him to succeed in the end; instead you should send Gomer Pyle, who is guaranteed to fail enough that he will eventually come out on top. It's just shenanigans from a causality standpoint. If I want to play a flawed character in D&D, then I can do that. I will choose to make the wrong choices, because I'm role-playing a flawed character, and that's what they would do. Rewarding that choice should not be necessary. That's not a very nice thing to say about Squirrel Girl. [/QUOTE]

Verification