Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 9253264" data-attributes="member: 87792">And this just reads like an abdication of responsibility and of care towards fellow players to me. It reads like you are trying to make the entire game about your personal tastes and fighting the system and the players to do it.Not when it is what the game itself encourages.There is a boardgame called Diplomacy where the core of the game is lying to and tricking your fellow players in order to set them up. The game encourages it through various methods including complete calculation being possible and concealed actions. If players were to pull the deeply set up betrayals of Diplomacy in most other games they would be complete jerks. But anyone playing Diplomacy and then whining that there were betrayals is going to get told that that's part of the game. For that matter it's the player who never tries betrayal that's the bad actor in Diplomacy.No system stops players fighting in character - but some systems encourage it. Or are even about it. Smallville, for example, is a game where all the PCs are going to find themselves on collision courses at different points because that is what is statted out. If you don't want some PVP don't play Smallville - and a player who doesn't have their character conflict with others and a GM who doesn't encourage this are the ones not playing the game.Meanwhile my games aren't free of PvP but it's never at a Smallville level. And having some clashes and tension makes the game better IME.The gameplay a system encourages is the most important thing about that system. And one of the things 3.x encourages is what you call "over-optimising". And paladin falling rules encourage stick up their backside paladins while individual XP for stealing GP encourages stealing from the party.This is a complete strawman. Playing genially towards other players includes playing the actual game you are given.  The definition of insanity is to do the same thing and expect different outcomes.And playing non-genially towards other players includes coming up with a whole slew of non-written rules for them to cross and then blaming them when they do so. You are the one who wants to rule-bind everything and blames people for doing what the game encourages. And I don't think it's a coincidence that you pick the D&D with the strictest and most detailed rules - but if you want your detailed builds I'd suggest FF XV.And if different people come in and regularly do the same things you can either<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Work out what is causing this given that the two common links are you and the system - and see if you can change one</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Accept that it is a part of what you are doing</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Be anti-social, using force and saying "reapect mah authoritah"</li> </ol>I choose option one. Working with people and picking systems that bring good results. You seem to pick option 3.Rules lawyers are a consequence of fiddly and detailed systems; there's nothing for them to lawyer in lighter games and after a few sessions they give up. Over-optimisers are a consequence of complex and unbalanced systems where the encounters are won out of rather than in play and no one notices. And someone claiming that people using the system in ways it rewards rather than the unwritten ways they think it should be done and then not picking a better system or fixing it is a textbook example of someone making the game all about them.</blockquote>

Verification