Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zak S" data-source="post: 6730044" data-attributes="member: 90370">In the case we're describing, a character's tactical choices are only perfect if the player's are and the player is as imperfect as all humans.Yes, but the point is your assertion that highly tactical players always treat their PCs as disposable bits (and therefore somehow less "real" than angstgame PCs)that they're unattached to and not invested in  is totally wrong.You're exaggerating your own preferences and pretending/assuming they cover the whole human race.That is what we were discussing.You have an Excluded Middle fallacy here, which ignores a very common situation:A player ISN'T playing Apocalypse World but is instead playing D&D and playing tactically WHILE STILL playing a character with a lot of personality. Much like real-life soldiers try to engage in encounters tactically while still possessing personalities.This happens all the time and for reasons you're leaving unexplained you're either unaware that this happens or pretending it doesn't.It looks like you are saying one cannot have a personality without being angsty.  My taste in RPG’s is definitely for characters with personalities, and not simple pawns on the board.  That is my preference for RPG’s.  That someone may prefer to reduce the RPG to a boardgame is fine – I also like  a lot of boardgames.  But a boardgame has different goals than an RPG, which is a common “introduction to new gamers” topic in RPG books.  If I want a boardgame, I will play a boardgame.  If the goal was to play an RPG, that is what I came to play.“infallible” typically means “cannot lose”.  The potential these characters will lose makes their stories worth reading.  They are highly competent. They are not infallible.EXACTLY like the PCs we are describing.If all tactical players were infallible, you couldn't pit them against each other in contests because neither side would ever lose, and you can.Most of the internet isn't rational.I don't know what you're trying to say here. You are claiming a common kind of player/PC combination (tactical player who plays a tactical PC with lots of plausible personality) doesn't exist. This directly contradicts observable reality. It isn't rational. It is like saying trees don't exist. I don't know why you're doing this, other than you're own experiences have been limited and it compels you to make hyperbolic statements in order to exaggerate a personal preference for games like AW into something that sounds more profound and objective than it actually is.I never did that or anything like it.</blockquote>

Verification