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="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8288622" data-attributes="member: 6790260">It seemed pretty clear to me that you did say that. Bold added for emphasis.If it is useful to extrapolate in one direction and "a mistake" to do it in the reverse direction, I don't know how that isn't saying it's not useful. I don't generally think of "mistakes" as useful things.So, there's absolutely no room whatsoever for asking, "well, I know my really close friend Sam really really loves X and is not very likely to have fun doing not-X, but I want to include Sam anyway, what should I do about that?" That is, you're starting from the idea that the actor petulantly refuses to play along, rather than it being a group of friends trying to accommodate everyone's interests as much as possible without sacrificing what they value. The latter seems much more likely and realistic to me--and that's a perfectly cromulent environment for asking not just "can this player be sufficiently flexible to embrace this style?", but also "can this style be sufficiently flexible to support this player?"I just don't get how it would be pointless to ask whether SP is also flexible, if the group is trying to be friendly to all of its players and not simply a tyranny by majority. The healthiest solution will almost certainly result in at least some tweaks in both directions. There will almost surely be fewer concessions/compromises from the SP side, because that's the system baseline and the play expectation of the majority. But if you can identify elements of SP that the players don't really mind altering or dropping that would be a real problem for your super actor-focused best friend, why wouldn't you try?</blockquote>

Verification