Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8007775" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I don't understand what you're saying here.&nbsp; Are you saying:&quot;I don't see a player building toward 'always rude' archetype for the reasons you put forth (are you meaning &quot;for thematic potency and related arc&quot;?).&quot;Two questions and thoughts here:1)&nbsp; Are we now attributing &quot;always rude&quot; to the PC who called out the Burgermeister (this is what I'm going with now since its changed so much...this dude flips the hell out of some all-beef patties and his special sauce is killer) for lacking fitness to rule? 2)&nbsp; Why are we doing that?&nbsp; Again, if this is just a rude player who has created a rude character as a proxy to be&nbsp; douche...why are we even having this conversation?&nbsp; Why was it posted as a thread?&nbsp; Its clearly a social dynamic that is specific to this group of people and they need to resolve it if that is the case.&nbsp; However, we can have an interesting conversation (and I've been trying to have it) about the player being sincere in their action declaration (meaning &quot;being rude&quot; isn't the 1st order intent within the fiction...its to get the Burgermeister to come to terms with the folly of his fat to protein ratio of his all-beef patty and the insufficient cumin count of his special sauce).3)&nbsp; &quot;Always rude&quot; is a weird archetype to build around.&nbsp; It doesn't describe ethos.&nbsp; It describes methodology.&nbsp; You can certainly build around someone who is coarse and blunt for sure.&nbsp; But those would be approaches to social conflict.&nbsp; In order for this character to have real thematic heft for the GM to put obstacles in between that character and their aims, we have to know what actually animates them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 8007775, member: 6696971"] I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you saying: "I don't see a player building toward 'always rude' archetype for the reasons you put forth (are you meaning "for thematic potency and related arc"?)." Two questions and thoughts here: 1) Are we now attributing "always rude" to the PC who called out the Burgermeister (this is what I'm going with now since its changed so much...this dude flips the hell out of some all-beef patties and his special sauce is killer) for lacking fitness to rule? 2) Why are we doing that? Again, if this is just a rude player who has created a rude character as a proxy to be douche...why are we even having this conversation? Why was it posted as a thread? Its clearly a social dynamic that is specific to this group of people and they need to resolve it if that is the case. However, we can have an interesting conversation (and I've been trying to have it) about the player being sincere in their action declaration (meaning "being rude" isn't the 1st order intent within the fiction...its to get the Burgermeister to come to terms with the folly of his fat to protein ratio of his all-beef patty and the insufficient cumin count of his special sauce). 3) "Always rude" is a weird archetype to build around. It doesn't describe ethos. It describes methodology. You can certainly build around someone who is coarse and blunt for sure. But those would be approaches to social conflict. In order for this character to have real thematic heft for the GM to put obstacles in between that character and their aims, we have to know what actually animates them. [/QUOTE]

Verification