Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MoonSong" data-source="post: 7491915" data-attributes="member: 6689464">I would amend what you are saying to compromises instead of sacrifices. As long as they are trade-offs the social contract can be upheld. Because if these are indeed sacrifices, someone is chronically on the losing side every time. Or less extremely, the give-ins are too front loaded for one person and things don't last enough for the compensations to be gained. Sorry if I'm babbling, but let's go back to your previous examples of your system. The first one is more of a compromise &quot;You are not the chosen one, but you are still special in a way&quot;, fine. The second one is closer to a sacrifice, &quot;You are not the well connected socialite that has friends everywhere, instead you are creepy, socially awkward, and deluded&quot;. The former is a concept getting adapted to the group's needs and wants -albeit by a shared public laugh at the player's expense-, the latter is a completely different character concept altogether, a total corruption of the original intent of the player -and with an even bigger laugh at the player's expense, more so because it comes from the figure of authority-, and the player has to go with it because that is the cost of playing in the group, which is desirable on itself, but still a net loss overall.&nbsp;&nbsp; Perhaps it becomes a compromise in the long run, the player uses the knowledge imparted by the ghosts to actually get to befriend a couple of important people, or in a later campaign the DM compensates the player by being more permissive on something that is more acceptable, but only if the campaign/group lasts that long and the same player doesn't keep getting the short end of the stick consistently. In which case we are talking of a sacrifice.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MoonSong, post: 7491915, member: 6689464"] I would amend what you are saying to compromises instead of sacrifices. As long as they are trade-offs the social contract can be upheld. Because if these are indeed sacrifices, someone is chronically on the losing side every time. Or less extremely, the give-ins are too front loaded for one person and things don't last enough for the compensations to be gained. Sorry if I'm babbling, but let's go back to your previous examples of your system. The first one is more of a compromise "You are not the chosen one, but you are still special in a way", fine. The second one is closer to a sacrifice, "You are not the well connected socialite that has friends everywhere, instead you are creepy, socially awkward, and deluded". The former is a concept getting adapted to the group's needs and wants -albeit by a shared public laugh at the player's expense-, the latter is a completely different character concept altogether, a total corruption of the original intent of the player -and with an even bigger laugh at the player's expense, more so because it comes from the figure of authority-, and the player has to go with it because that is the cost of playing in the group, which is desirable on itself, but still a net loss overall. Perhaps it becomes a compromise in the long run, the player uses the knowledge imparted by the ghosts to actually get to befriend a couple of important people, or in a later campaign the DM compensates the player by being more permissive on something that is more acceptable, but only if the campaign/group lasts that long and the same player doesn't keep getting the short end of the stick consistently. In which case we are talking of a sacrifice. [/QUOTE]

Verification