Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Don Durito" data-source="post: 8307663" data-attributes="member: 6687260">No I haven't.&nbsp; This is a useless canard that adds nothing to the discussion.It sounds like your players aren't fully aware of the tactical trade-offs.&nbsp; They may be having fun, but it's still a flaw in the game.&nbsp; There's a tactical element to the game. Whether disadvantage is &quot;that bad&quot; is not the point. Obviously.&nbsp; It's whether you are actually better of not doing a stunt in the first place from a rational consideration.I don't think it's unreasonable, in the tactical game, to both want a stunt to be fun descriptively and to be worth doing in the game.See my last sentence above.&nbsp; I just knew someone would respond to my post with some nonsense of this kind.My point is simple, in order to be actually worth doing as a tactical game element (note the RPGame! - and if you don't want to engage with the game element of D&amp;D, I don't understand the point of playing a rpg with so much game in it), the tradeoff for a stunt needs to be good.&nbsp; It needs to be unintuitively good (to the extent that a good GM - not an indifferent one, a good one I tell you - is most likely, in an off the cuff ruling, not going to make it good enough).&nbsp; It wasn't until I sat down and thought through the opportunity costs, that I fully realised why stunts were falling flat.&nbsp; So if you want to make stunts hard, then make them hard, but then the rewards have to be correspondingly even better.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Don Durito, post: 8307663, member: 6687260"] No I haven't. This is a useless canard that adds nothing to the discussion. It sounds like your players aren't fully aware of the tactical trade-offs. They may be having fun, but it's still a flaw in the game. There's a tactical element to the game. Whether disadvantage is "that bad" is not the point. Obviously. It's whether you are actually better of not doing a stunt in the first place from a rational consideration. I don't think it's unreasonable, in the tactical game, to both want a stunt to be fun descriptively and to be worth doing in the game. See my last sentence above. I just knew someone would respond to my post with some nonsense of this kind. My point is simple, in order to be actually worth doing as a tactical game element (note the RPGame! - and if you don't want to engage with the game element of D&D, I don't understand the point of playing a rpg with so much [I]game [/I]in it), the tradeoff for a stunt needs to be good. It needs to be unintuitively good (to the extent that a good GM - not an indifferent one, a good one I tell you - is most likely, in an off the cuff ruling, not going to make it good enough). It wasn't until I sat down and thought through the opportunity costs, that I fully realised why stunts were falling flat. So if you want to make stunts hard, then make them hard, but then the rewards have to be correspondingly even better. [/QUOTE]

Verification