Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8933708" data-attributes="member: 6790260">This would mean that, if we take the &quot;there's only about a 25% chance even one person drops to 0 HP per session&quot; thing seriously, the proposed rule would effectively double the lethality of the game. Yes, I think it's a pretty significant change to make the game twice as deadly!Okay. So you're cool with the players taking an entirely mercenary view. Your statements weren't the ones I was responding to; TheSword's were. You can't simultaneously seek to incentivize teamwork and other-valuing choices and incentivize personal survival and self-serving choices. Either you're working at cross purposes (which leads to bad design, design that actively fights against itself), or you're saying one thing but doing another (which leads to deceptive design--a distinct but still serious issue.)I, personally, very much wanted to encourage characters to act nobly, show compassion, and value people and places inherently, not instrumentally. The proposed rules run directly counter to that; they will almost surely teach players to be murderhobos. I'm a bad fit for a murderhobo game, and told my players as much. As I said in the &quot;endings&quot; thread, I love heroes and happy endings, and I rapidly lose interest in grimdark/&quot;90s antihero&quot;/&quot;Evil vs Evil&quot; type stories, which are lamentably extremely common in fiction today. We have, together, built conditions for a world where dark things really do happen, but the player characters can fight back and make things actually better. Often incompletely or haltingly; real, lasting change is hard, and usually takes a long time. But you can still make a difference and protect things that matter--and you may need to make great sacrifices along the way.I adore actual teamwork games. D&amp;D, with exactly one exception (you know the one), has manifestly failed to actually support real teamwork. It supports murderhoboism, however, which can create a fragile facsimile of teamwork that dissolves like cotton candy in water at the first sign of danger. In other words, a &quot;teamwork&quot; which does not merit the name. (&quot;...courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point, which means, at the point of highest reality.&quot; C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters, letter XXIX)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8933708, member: 6790260"] This would mean that, if we take the "there's only about a 25% chance even [I]one person[/I] drops to 0 HP per session" thing seriously, the proposed rule would effectively double the lethality of the game. Yes, I think it's a pretty significant change to make the game twice as deadly! Okay. So you're cool with the players taking an entirely mercenary view. [I]Your[/I] statements weren't the ones I was responding to; TheSword's were. You can't simultaneously seek to incentivize teamwork and other-valuing choices [I]and[/I] incentivize personal survival and self-serving choices. Either you're working at cross purposes (which leads to bad design, design that actively fights against itself), or you're saying one thing but doing another (which leads to deceptive design--a distinct but still serious issue.) I, personally, very much wanted to encourage characters to act nobly, show compassion, and value people and places inherently, not instrumentally. The proposed rules run directly counter to that; they will almost surely teach players to be murderhobos. I'm a bad fit for a murderhobo game, and told my players as much. As I said in the "endings" thread, I love heroes and happy endings, and I rapidly lose interest in grimdark/"90s antihero"/"Evil vs Evil" type stories, which are lamentably extremely common in fiction today. We have, together, built conditions for a world where dark things really do happen, but the player characters can fight back and make things actually better. Often incompletely or haltingly; real, lasting change is hard, and usually takes a long time. But you can still make a difference and protect things that matter--and you may need to make great sacrifices along the way. I adore actual teamwork games. D&D, with exactly one exception (you know the one), has manifestly failed to actually support real teamwork. It supports murderhoboism, however, which can create a fragile facsimile of teamwork that dissolves like cotton candy in water at the first sign of danger. In other words, a "teamwork" which does not merit the name. ("...courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point, which means, at the point of highest reality." C.S. Lewis, [I]The Screwtape Letters[/I], letter XXIX) [/QUOTE]

Verification