NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 7744057" data-attributes="member: 3400">Yeah, see, I think there are very few things about this quote that doesn't set off multiple red flags for players like me and Lanefan. I can't speak for him, but I can start with my reasons for finding this problematic.1) Players having XP incentives to PvP. I'm not necessarily against reasonable PvP that grows out of situation, but I sure don't give my players incentives to antagonize each other.2) Interminable PC vs PC arguments - that's not a failure in the game grinding to a halt, it's a failure in players to make reasonable compromises, and that's dysfunction masquerading as role playing.3) Using PC mechanics rather than some kind of negotiated decision-making by the players most likely incorporates structural inequality. Players have equal status at the table, but the PCs may not be equal. Using social mechanics to sort out arguments in 4e - how often is the wizard with the dumped Charisma going to out-argue the diplomancer bard? In Traveller - how often is the captain with multiple levels of Leadership going to be out-argued by the 1-term mechanic working in the engine room? Players don't have structural inequality - PCs probably do.4) The general trend in real PC control powers over the years - whether magical or superpower - is to substantially limit their impact and duration. Using a social mechanic, or any other mechanic, to determine decision-making for indefinite time periods is contrary to that trend - WAY contrary.5) If this really is a case of players at loggerheads, that should be resolved out of character. Trying to resolve player issues as if they're PC issues - usually doesn't work. If it's PCs at absolute loggerheads, then we're back at #2 above.</blockquote>

Verification