Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mneme" data-source="post: 5529239" data-attributes="member: 59248">Yep!  We're running out of things to argue about (and I can hardly disagree on that).Very much so on the first.Regarding the second, while it's very true, one still wants to move the spotlight around a bit--so having some characters deemphasized in some scenes is a fine thing as long as nobody's always on the sidelines or actively spiking the fun.Well, no -- but again, this is the difference between a good player and a bad player playing "stupid".The bad player will (assuming they don't simply play the character like a tactical genius) play essentially randomly, or pick some "stupid" tactics and stick to them stubornly regardless of the situation.  And, of course, occasionally do some stupid stuff that not only get themselves killed but get all or most of the party killed too.The good player will decide on some basic sound tactics and priorities based on the character's skills and abilities, and tend to stick to them in an ordinary combat, doing generally well with them (as they after all, have built the character to be capable with those abilities).  When things get tough?  They'll have the character do something appropriate based on the character's abilities and within the character's limits -- and if party members have a better idea, they'll take those into account.Yep.  My touchstone for "good stupid" is, if anything, the Bill and Ted movies -- where yes, the characters aren't amazingly bright, and yes, they're slackers.  But the -writers- are very bright, and will occasionally have the characters put things together just in time to save the day.Indeed.  And in every smart character, it's worth putting a blind spot; some flaw where they're not mentally completely perfect.  In every stupid character, it's worth letting them have the occasional flashes of almost brillance--when it's plausible and interesting, and doesn't break character.  Monotony is monotonous.And -this- is central.  Bad/unfun play is bad play, and doesn't get to be excused by what's written on your character sheet -- because -you- are in control of your character sheet and how you play the character, not the other way around.Exactly so.  In the same way, I've seen people react badly to the idea of playing children, or chaotics (in pre-4e D&D), or bards, or humorous characters in general.  All these concepts (and more -- I've seen a player playing an over-cautious "leader" type cautious a game almost to death) can act as an avenue for a player to derail a game, acting out, upstaging everyone, and overall being an unfun hindrance.  They can -also- be an avenue for players to enhance the game, pushing concepts that enhance fun and make for a more interesting and engaging story--but people usually don't remember the good moments as much as the bad ones.</blockquote>

Verification