Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="swrushing" data-source="post: 2818176" data-attributes="member: 14140">Ok. I can buy that.OK.Actually, i find both the metagaming and the cheating to be of equal disfavor. both are "stepping outside of the rules" to get what I want toi happen. But the metagame, taking an out of character action, is more likely to get noticed, thus more likely to actually draw attention away from the goal, which is to help the other player get the dramatically most appropriate result.Seeing me, the tactical wizard that i am, suddenly not take the attack... that would raise some eyebrows. Seeing me who is famous for botching rolls miss a kill shot to hit and toss my dice in disgust...again... that would bring laughter and then intent glee at the ranger getting his kill.But, as others have stated... for some around here... metagaming is acceptable chaeting and fudging the die will get me kicked out first offense.color me amused.being able to influence the action doesn't equate to "and thuis MUST control them".Look, practically every modern gaming system has adopted some form of action points for the explicit purpose of allowing players to exert some influence over the die roll. They tacticly or sometimes explicitly admit that at times following the die can be bad and they add a mechanic to allow it. Most modern RPGs tell the Gm to not let the dice be the sole judge jury and executioner and to at times exert his common sense, dramatic sense and so forth.Well, just because a game doesn't have action dice doen't mean its mechanics are so perfect that the same "problems or harm caused by the dice" don't exist. It just means that there is no formal way to ameliorate them in play.indeed, and also, for good and for ill, for better results or for worse results.if you consider "so you have more fun" a negative sentiment, you are correct.sometimes the die does bad things and would be worse for the game if kept. Every action point system out there tacitly or explicitly agrees with this. Why in the world someone would believe this is only true for action point games and that games where "you cannot change the dice" the dice only produce good results is boggling to me. Also why chosing to take the better result wouldbe bad is baffling.Slippery slope.Making efficient characters can escalate into excessively maximized abusive characters who disrupt play and fun.Slippery sloperoleplaying well a dynamic and intriguing character with his own goals and motivations can lead to hogging the spotlight and dominating play, to the detriment of others enjoyment.if i am against everything which if escalated can produce negative effects and disrupt a game... i am not in favor of much.of course, the slippery slope argument is in itself a slippery slope.how many other good roleplaying habits can you see getting to be a problem or abusive or sidruptive if also carried to the extreme, if escalated, if basically, one simply does them without regard for others enjoyment?We all say "role play your character" but we all also know that there is a "common sense" limit of "but make it in a way that keeps the game going and fun" and how many times have we heard " i was just playing my character" tagged onto some obnoxious game disruoptive behavior?You willing to be against "play your character" because if taken too far down its own slippery slope it can be disruptive?like any technique it can be overused or even abused. if its used enough to make it seem constant, its likely overused and wont be effective.</blockquote>

Verification