Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8651304" data-attributes="member: 29398">Which means, in theory, E will be just as often that &quot;best in slots/capacity&quot; as any other character, right?&nbsp; If not, you're playing favourites; and I'd further posit you're pulling an end run around your group's democratic process by arbitrarily doing so.Why would E be lower level, unless you're giving xp for treasure?&nbsp; E has been around longer than any other character in the party.And by &quot;E WILL die&quot; do you mean you'd unfairly pick on E during the run of play?I see the difference but it's not something I'm really on board with in any version.&nbsp; Sure, the idea that you have a democratic way of doing things is great, but all you end up with is individuality being stifled - at the player level but more sadly at the character level - in favour of groupthink.It also sounds like a breeding ground for arguments if all it takes is one player saying they don't like how another player's character is being played to put that character's (and that player's?) continuance to a vote.&nbsp; End result: in effect the players end up getting told how to play their characters - albeit by the whole table rather than any one person - which is the antithesis of player agency.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 8651304, member: 29398"] Which means, in theory, E will be just as often that "best in slots/capacity" as any other character, right? If not, you're playing favourites; and I'd further posit you're pulling an end run around your group's democratic process by arbitrarily doing so. Why would E be lower level, unless you're giving xp for treasure? E has been around longer than any other character in the party. And by "E WILL die" do you mean you'd unfairly pick on E during the run of play? I see the difference but it's not something I'm really on board with in any version. Sure, the idea that you have a democratic way of doing things is great, but all you end up with is individuality being stifled - at the player level but more sadly at the character level - in favour of groupthink. It also sounds like a breeding ground for arguments if all it takes is one player saying they don't like how another player's character is being played to put that character's (and that player's?) continuance to a vote. End result: in effect the players end up getting told how to play their characters - albeit by the whole table rather than any one person - which is the antithesis of player agency. [/QUOTE]

Verification