NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5605311" data-attributes="member: 6668292">I hope you take everything I say as civilly as possible. I know tone is hard to get across in text.Well, if that's your statement, then it's understandable while so many people are so defensive. Saying "you could be having more fun than you are" is nice and all, but saying "you're not playing the game as well as you can" is pretty close to that statement. That's understandably inflammatory, and I'd personally recommend against it, as it contributes very little to a discussion, and greatly to an argument. Just my views.This is what makes it seem like you should be saying "in my group" to me. The statement of "breaks immersion for the group" is going to vary wildly from group to group. I dislike minis, as they break immersion for me. Lanefan likes them (I think), as they assist him in feeling immersed.That you're extending your personal experience to accompany what makes a better game for others is problematic to civil discussion in my mind. You can have a discussion, yes, but it will cause more problems than the statement contributes.If that's your preference, that's cool. Play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />It seems like you're looking to argue this, still, not discuss it. I could be wrong, but that's how this is coming across. This has been answered in my post. The superior might believe you, but it doesn't mean he'll act on it. I've convinced people to believe things that are outlandish, but they still will not ditch work to deal with it. The Risk vs. Reward prevents them from doing so. They might believe me, but the relatively little payoff compared to the risk involved is not worth it.Again, people seem to house rule this. This seems apparent from this very thread. That there's a house rule to deal with a specific group's play style should in no way be surprising, nor controversial.This isn't a railroad. You portraying it as such does not make it so. You repeatedly attempting to paint the side who you think could be playing a "better game" in a poor light is not constructive. If you have a specific problem, I have no problem going more in-depth on it. If you want to argue, I'll have to withdraw, and continue to discuss this with those who wish to do so.I'm going to take this as a "the game world is losing consistency" rather than in any offensive manner. As I wrote upthread, my reaction when playing is "that's odd. Things don't normally work that way... [investigates in-game]"This method is completely valid. The investigation might reveal why something didn't work. "Oh, he didn't believe me because the actual diplomats (who we were claiming to be) had already arrived, about twenty minutes before we arrived, who the king greeted (and knows) personally." The roll was still allowed because the players don't know what's up. It has basically zero chance of success, because the guards saw the king's interactions. The player thinks "Not only is my bluff believable, as they're expecting diplomats that fit our descriptions, but I rolled a 34, you'd think that'd be good enough!" Investigation in-game reveals why this didn't work out.Nobody on the other side of your argument has said it's arbitrarily being stopped to foil the players. They're saying certain things cannot be made to sound true. No matter how good you are at lying, you cannot convince me that I cannot think. Just the fact that I can process your statement makes it wrong.Certain things fail because of pure absurdity. Certain things fail because of in-game issues that players are unaware of. The fact that you and your group and probably many others prefer your play style does not mean that others are playing a worse game by not adopting it. Such a statement is obviously insulting.Awesome, I'd love to hear these. This statement looks much more like a discussion than an argument.That makes sense. I think my solution also fixes that (in-game investigation), but if this is what you prefer, then play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />See, I don't distrust my players. It seems like you think I do, since I don't play the style you prefer. If that's the basis for your second point, you can see how I'd disagree with it.I hope you take everything I say as civilly as possible. I know tone is hard to get across in text. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification