Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 7569991">In regard to the two things I bolded:&quot;because it's more plausible&quot;:&nbsp; I'm with you up to this point, including (especially) the bit about sometimes doing sub-optimal thing, but I would say &quot;because it's the most entertaining&quot;.&nbsp; I don't really buy this &quot;more plausible&quot; argument, because in a good fantasy story I'm not sure plausible is really what I want.&nbsp; Again, it's more plausible that Bilbo, being a Hobbit, would never have left his home, but even if he had, it's more plausible that...etc.&nbsp; And you can keep doing that through the whole story, cancelling pretty much anything interesting.BUT...one might say...he was a special hobbit, and so the most plausible thing was actually something surprising and interesting. Exactly.&nbsp; So all I'm saying is: let players decide when and how the characters they control are actually surprising and interesting, and thus do implausibly entertaning things.&quot;rather than insisting that my enjoyment is more important&quot;: So, I find this really interesting, and I think it helps me understand where you are coming from. Or maybe it's just another reflection of what has been said in this thread a bunch of times, about finding people who play the way you do.It seems like you are interpreting this frog scenario as a big F.U. to the rest of the table.&nbsp; That the person doing it is willfully wrecking everybody else's fun for the benefit of his own character.&nbsp; And, yeah, if that's what's going on it's not cool.But if I were at the table with a total stranger who did this, he/she wouldn't be having fun at the expense of my fun.&nbsp; I'd think it was awesome, and a clever twist.&nbsp; Furthermore, I wouldn't even see it as his victory over the hag, because in my mind what happens at the table is totally separate from the fiction in the game.&nbsp; So I'd be simultaneously thinking, &quot;LOL, nice one, George!&quot; and &quot;Ha! The hag must be cursing her bad luck!&quot;But NOT &quot;George just outsmarted the Witch&quot; or even &quot;George just outsmarted the DM.&quot;&nbsp; That's just simply not the point, as far as I'm concerned.&nbsp; It's not the player vs. the DM, or the player trying to &quot;beat&quot; the adventure and cheating to do so.'Yeah, this is more on that second point above.&nbsp; This paragraph just doesn't make any sense to me, or seem to have anything to do with the scenario we're talking about.&nbsp; I see the player as having contributed an awesome, unexpected twist to the story.&nbsp; You (seem to) see the player cheating to give himself an advantage.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 7569991"] In regard to the two things I bolded: "because it's more plausible": I'm with you up to this point, including (especially) the bit about sometimes doing sub-optimal thing, but I would say "because it's the most entertaining". I don't really buy this "more plausible" argument, because in a good fantasy story I'm not sure plausible is really what I want. Again, it's more plausible that Bilbo, being a Hobbit, would never have left his home, but even if he had, it's more plausible that...etc. And you can keep doing that through the whole story, cancelling pretty much anything interesting. BUT...one might say...he was a special hobbit, and so the most plausible thing was actually something surprising and interesting. Exactly. So all I'm saying is: let players decide when and how the characters they control are actually surprising and interesting, and thus do implausibly entertaning things. "rather than insisting that my enjoyment is more important": So, I find this really interesting, and I think it helps me understand where you are coming from. Or maybe it's just another reflection of what has been said in this thread a bunch of times, about finding people who play the way you do. It [I]seems like[/I] you are interpreting this frog scenario as a big F.U. to the rest of the table. That the person doing it is willfully wrecking everybody else's fun for the benefit of his own character. And, yeah, if that's what's going on it's not cool. But if I were at the table with a total stranger who did this, he/she wouldn't be having fun at the expense of my fun. I'd think it was awesome, and a clever twist. Furthermore, I wouldn't even see it as [I]his[/I] victory over the hag, because in my mind what happens at the table is totally separate from the fiction in the game. So I'd be simultaneously thinking, "LOL, nice one, George!" and "Ha! The hag must be cursing her bad luck!" But NOT "George just outsmarted the Witch" or even "George just outsmarted the DM." That's just simply not the point, as far as I'm concerned. It's not the player vs. the DM, or the player trying to "beat" the adventure and cheating to do so. ' Yeah, this is more on that second point above. This paragraph just doesn't make any sense to me, or seem to have anything to do with the scenario we're talking about. I see the player as having contributed an awesome, unexpected twist to the story. You (seem to) see the player cheating to give himself an advantage. [/QUOTE]

Verification