Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8697046" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Well, let's see, how could I have gotten that idea? What did you say two posts ago? "Chaosmancer, please understand that fear and the Frightened condition are different things.A character who is afraid of something can move towards the source of their fear. This is being brave.A character who is subjected to the Frightened condition can't move towards the source of their fear. This isn't being brave or being not brave or being cowardly; it's being under the effects of a game condition that has its own rules that supersede player agency."Hmmm, so in this post, which again was just two posts ago, you said that fear and frightened condition are different. Moving towards fear is what makes someone brave, and that the frightened condition doesn't involve being brave or not being brave. And notably, I agreed with you. Now, what did you say in your last post?"Within the world of the game, halflings are considered to be braver than other races because they can face down terrifying things (i.e., things that cause the Frightened condition) far more easily than anyone else can.Why is this? Because nobody in the game world knows the difference between being afraid and being Frightened, because nobody in the game has read the PHB. And that is why halflings are braver than anyone else. Nobody in the game world has the meta-knowledge that we players have." Well, wait a minute. In this post, which was your response immediately after the text I posted above, you say that halflings are considered brave because they overcome the frightened condition. But didn't you say "This isn't being brave or being not brave or being cowardly; it's being under the effects of a game condition that has its own rules that supersede player agency." So, how are halflings brave for doing a thing that you said isn't about being brave? I mean, I must be trolling you right? That's the only way you contradticting yourself and me calling you on it can be explained, is if I am a malicious actor. You said things I agreed with, then undercut those things by trying to hide in the narrative where the mechanics that you said don't matter can't be seen. I called you on it. You can't have it both ways. Either we as players are told halflings are brave because of how they interact with the frightened condition, and therefore the frightened condition becomes an arbiter of bravery, or it doesn't and being told they are brave makes no sense, because their ability can't make them brave. You can't have it both ways.My god, you seriously never read a single thing I post, do you? Here's a refresher courseHonestly, you caught me Faolyn! What a devastating blow to my argument that halfling luck would disrupt the game and be a bad rule to point out that halfling luck would disrupt the game and be a bad rule. How could I not have seen it in the multiple times I said the exact same thing! This changes everything, I mean, if the narrative properly presented would be detrimental to the game then someone might suggest that narrative is problematic and should be changed! Luckily, you were here to point out my exact argument to me. Again!!So, this is the point where I accuse you of trolling me, right? Of maliciously misconstruing my points? Or maybe you plan on telling me that my arguments don't mean what I think they mean. I do accept that they gave them the re-roll 1's ability to represent the narrative of supernatural luck. Because that's bloody obvious. My point is that the trope of supernatural luck is bad for the game, and not in a way that is as easily understood as "why can't my character be 18 levels higher than everyone else's" And it not being allowed isn't as easily accepted as "You can't be 18 levels stronger than everyone else, because it would be bad for the entire party to have that big of a strength disparity." Because it doesn't seem that hard to do at first, it seems like you could just have a character avoid getting splashed with mud, or to find an extra copper on the streets, but when you sit at a table, and know that one person is getting special treatment, it isn't fun. Here's a non-DnD example, to get my point across. I played in the playtest for Warhammer 40K: Wrath and Glory at a convention. It did it two years in a row. The first year was great, and it felt amazing. The second year was horrific, if it had been my first experience, I might never want to give the system a try again. Part of this was the GM, who gushed over the space marine character. See, Wrath and Glory was different because the rules allowed for everyone to play at the same table, even if their characters were different "tiers". So a lowly guardsmen could get a few extra tiers and cool stories, and be able to fight alongside a space marine. But, after whoevers turn it was before the space marine, the GM would start gushing over how what we had done was fine, but NOW we were going to see something really cool, because the Space Marine was going to go. Yeah, the Comissar had done a good job with her chain sword but NOW the space marine was going to match her with nothing but a dagger.It didn't affect gameplay. The GM never gave the space marine character anything special. All they did was talk about how amazing the space marine was and how much better they were than us. Because we were cool, but we weren't a SPACE MARINE. If one player is constantly getting benefits? If the DM is constantly going out of their way to make sure good things happen to one character, while the others are inconvenienced or miss out? People resent that. A lot. But the halfling player may not realize it, because they don't see it as special treatment, they see it as their narrative due, because that's just how halflings are. Everyone knows bringing a level 19 character to play a level 1 game is bad. Not everyone is going to realize giving the halfling player special treatment is equally as bad for the table unless the entire group is on board with it.</blockquote>

Verification