Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ridley's Cohort" data-source="post: 6414010" data-attributes="member: 545">Exactly.Sitting in a box in my garage is a copy of Chivalry &amp; Sorcery (1st edition), published circa 1977, which predates the publication of AD&amp;D.In that game, you roll stats, you roll social status (yes, you may be a peasant who needs to grovel while near their &quot;betters&quot; in civilized lands), you roll your race, you roll your alignment(!).At least at some superficial level, rolling for this stuff is fair, because everyone rolls on the same table.&nbsp; A lot of modern RPGers would say &quot;WTF!&quot; at being forced to roll all those things, and be expected to play the PC that results because it would not feel like their own character (among other things).&nbsp; There is no right or wrong here; it is a question of how expectations are set and managed.The foundational assumption of an RPG played at the table is that the rules&nbsp; + DM + houserules + campaign rules + group agreements + etc. collectively put certain constraints on which kinds of &quot;fair&quot; are included in this particular game, which kinds of fair are &quot;in play&quot; in front of the screen, and also which things are excluded because they are either &quot;unfair&quot; or &quot;less fun&quot;.Furthermore, if we stop and think about what a DM does, why would a DM ever reject a suggestion or request from a player?&nbsp; There are many possible reasons.&nbsp; In no particular order, the more common ones would be &quot;that is too good (unfair compared to options available to other PCs)&quot;,&nbsp; &quot;that is too good (trivializes a kind of challenge I want to put against the party, so the game will be less fun)&quot;, &quot;does not fit in this campaign (adds work for me, so I have less fun)&quot;,&nbsp; &quot;does not fit in this campaign (straying from my vision will make it less fun for me/DM, and maybe the players as well)&quot;, &quot;I do not like that (you are adding work by asking me to think too hard right now about something you do not need to have fun)&quot;.&nbsp; (I am sure there are others, by I believe I covered the common ones.)How many on that list (or your list) are tied to &quot;fairness&quot;?&nbsp; A minority.&nbsp; In fact, DMs (and/or players) veto all kinds of &quot;fair&quot; options all the time, because they have other reasons that take precedence to fairness.Logically speaking, fairness is a necessary but not sufficient reason for including an element in the game.(And, of course, there are those rare cases we very purposefully include outright unfair options, but that not the run of the mill scenario.)So, when someone says &quot;This is fair, and I do not care about nuances about fun&quot; they are fundamentally misunderstanding the very nature of how roleplaying games are usually played.&nbsp; Sure, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it is very inauspicious line of persuasion.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ridley's Cohort, post: 6414010, member: 545"] Exactly. Sitting in a box in my garage is a copy of Chivalry & Sorcery (1st edition), published circa 1977, which predates the publication of AD&D. In that game, you roll stats, you roll social status (yes, you may be a peasant who needs to grovel while near their "betters" in civilized lands), you roll your race, you roll your alignment(!). At least at some superficial level, rolling for this stuff is fair, because everyone rolls on the same table. A lot of modern RPGers would say "WTF!" at being forced to roll all those things, and be expected to play the PC that results because it would not feel like their own character (among other things). There is no right or wrong here; it is a question of how expectations are set and managed. The foundational assumption of an RPG played at the table is that the rules + DM + houserules + campaign rules + group agreements + etc. collectively put certain constraints on which kinds of "fair" are included in this particular game, which kinds of fair are "in play" in front of the screen, and also which things are excluded because they are either "unfair" or "less fun". Furthermore, if we stop and think about what a DM does, why would a DM ever reject a suggestion or request from a player? There are many possible reasons. In no particular order, the more common ones would be "that is too good (unfair compared to options available to other PCs)", "that is too good (trivializes a kind of challenge I want to put against the party, so the game will be less fun)", "does not fit in this campaign (adds work for me, so I have less fun)", "does not fit in this campaign (straying from my vision will make it less fun for me/DM, and maybe the players as well)", "I do not like that (you are adding work by asking me to think too hard right now about something you do not need to have fun)". (I am sure there are others, by I believe I covered the common ones.) How many on that list (or your list) are tied to "fairness"? A minority. In fact, DMs (and/or players) veto all kinds of "fair" options all the time, because they have other reasons that take precedence to fairness. [b]Logically speaking, fairness is a necessary but not sufficient reason for including an element in the game.[/b] (And, of course, there are those rare cases we very purposefully include outright unfair options, but that not the run of the mill scenario.) So, when someone says "This is fair, and I do not care about nuances about fun" they are fundamentally misunderstanding the very nature of how roleplaying games are usually played. Sure, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it is very inauspicious line of persuasion. [/QUOTE]

Verification