Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7297823" data-attributes="member: 6919838">i am sorry that my discussion, perhaps inartful, of the mechanical issues and balance concerns i have seen crop up over the years somehow lead you to see this as a rollplay vs roleplay riff opportunity. it was not my intent. In my last session an entire combat against two recurring bounty hunters that had been stalking a PC was resolved with a hand wave due to the PCs having setup a sure win situation based on the PLAYER CHOICES combined with the CHARACTER CAPABILITIES. (i did give them the option of fighting it out, in case they wanted to round out the session with a slugfest. they declined cuz they were more interested in the "what and why" than the thumping time in that case.)In a recent session, one of my players balked at and refused a plan (suggested OOC as advice) that was a very good plan (if not the best, actually) because it meant "his character" would take damage they did not have to and "no way Danni is going to even consider that option over not take damage options."See, we both have big "fun sticks".So this just is not about who's fun stick is bigger than their mechanics stick or which group makes choices for fun when they want to or not. I assume both do, most do, if not maybe *all* do. really, its not.But, i also do very strongly suggest in my games that players spend some time or effort (or ask me to do it for them or assist if they prefer) to make sure their vision of what the character's strengths are matches with their chosen mechanics. that way, both they and i can have the same expectations of what will be likely outcomes when key moments arise.And, it may come as a shock but the options are not "the character is a build - yes or no" like some binary choice. In my games the "character" is the union and (most critically at many key times) the intersection of the "build" (IE the actual game stats as they are now), the background, the players vision for what that person is/was, the current encounter/situation and the PLAYER'S CHOICES.  And whether in combat or out of combat that remains true... for my games... because i have in my world TESTS for the CHARACTERS (all the parts above) and not TESTS FOR THE PLAYERS.ASIDEI guess my final straw for falling out of favor with TESTS FOR THE PLAYERS style was when i lost a character due to failing amandatory life or death riddle that had to do with some Saturday morning TV show and nothing to do with actual in-game references. i think it was blah blah "the barbarian's oath" and it related to THUNDARR the BARBARIAN TV show which was not something i ever watched and which was not part of the game but was something the GM or his brother was a fan of. (They later said they put that one in because they expected their brother to be playing but when he backed out they left it in...oh well) But for sure the years of "door protocol 7" and "say you look up or else" dungeon play GMs also were more straws on the back.</blockquote>

Verification