Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lyxen" data-source="post: 8377867" data-attributes="member: 7032025">No, I did not say that, and you did not quote me, you constantly misquote me.Compare:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Your claim: "First my play is dumb (or requires every creature to be dumb, which isn't actually different). Then it was that I don't roleplay at all."</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">My actual sentences:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">"I personally think that it looks silly, experienced adventurers and powerful monsters always getting caught by an adversary popping out at the exact same place, but if you want to play dumb monsters and adventurers, it's your game, you do whatever you want."</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">"Nope, never said that, what I said is that the adventurers and monsters that get played and that get surprised every round by the same rogue/goblin popping out at the exact same place are dumb. But it can be really funny to play dumb characters, I know, one of my best LARPs (continued as tabletop adventures) was when I was playing a really, really stupid Goblin."</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Believe it or not, I don't call the approach dumb, I call it purely mechanistic, which is not what I'm intestered in about the game, although I understand that you are, as are many other players.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">So neither are the play nor the players dumb, and if you can't see the difference, please look at what roleplaying means.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">[talking about always hiding in the same place] "It's a clear lack of imagination and creativity, and so silly visually that it's never been done in any movie and book of the kind, genre or not, because it looks and feels dumb. The only way it works is for comedy effect on really dumb creatures, and even then whoever is writing the book/movie is clever enough to have the attacks at least pop out from various places. Now, technically the game allows it, so if you want to play a purely technical game, have fun as much as you want, but don't pretend that it's roleplaying or storytelling at this stage."</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">And again, I never said that your game lacks roleplaying or storytelling in general, just that at this stage of resolution of the hide action, it's purely technical (do an action, roll the dice, do not take the situation or the world consistency into account, just the rules) and that does not show any mark of roleplaying or storytelling, just applying the rules.</li> </ul></li> </ul>I might reply to the rest of the post once you have digested this and once I've sorted all the chaff from what has some remote interest to this thread.I will answer the point below because it's relevant and not presented in too insulting a fashion.At our tables, we did not have this at start, but now we do. The thing is that it was sort of well intentioned at first, but the drift occurred during our 3e days where the game grew extremely complicated at high level. So what was only meant to be friendly advice top deal with complicated situations and choices derived into "strong suggestions" even if it never was "telling others what to do". So this is when we had to put that kind of contract in place.The reason for not asking the goal at our table is twofold:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">First, it streamlines the game by making the declarations that much shorter.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">But also it avoids people trying to justify things to other players and getting some sort of "pass" that what they are doing is right, which not only has a tendency to draw people back in (see the point above), but also removes surprise and promotes metagaming.</li> </ul>So we stick with descriptions, and if they are not clear enough, we dig a bit more.But then the descriptions really matter. If a player tells me, as a flourish "I keep an eye on that pillar because I know that this is the enemy rogue is hidden - he had nowhere else to go", I will take that into account for the actual resolution. I don't need a goal, it's after all rather obvious.</blockquote>

Verification