So that's why you like it

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

You're assuming that what a setting appears to be must always and automatically equate to what it actually is.

If I don't my entire thought process goes out of whack because if I can't trust my own judgment then anything is possible. And that's just too much to be on the lookout for.

How many of the English do you think actually expected victory in WWII, during the worst of the Blitz? But they fought because it was the right thing to do, because the only other option was even worse, and they held out until victory--which might have seemed utterly ludicrous at the beginning--turned out to actually be a possibility.

In Star Wars, how likely did victory over the Empire seem to anyone--even the Rebels--until one Luke Skywalker came along? And yet, if the Rebels before him hadn't fought a "hopeless" battle, Luke never would have had his chance to change things.

And yet these situations had a universe that seemed to be worth fighting for. The SW universe wasn't all Empire nor was it filled with petty bickering or long-standing rivalries. Britain had a good world before the war, they had something to fight for, and not all of Earth was mired in their conflict.

Your examples, I think, have the flaw that they are monumental conflicts between clear sides with one clear good choice. In those cases it's clear how to fix the problem: whack the bad side. So long as there isn't an aftermath that invalidates that action I can live with that kind of world.

But that's what I don't see in so many settings.

Sometimes, when things seem the most hopeless, that's when only a few truly committed individuals actually can change things.

Committed individuals can change things at any time, you don't need a hopeless situation.

When I play a character in a world were everything seems hopeless, or like the challenges are too big for any individual to change, I'm often playing to look for that one opportunity to prove the rest of the world wrong.

That's what I'm saying: I take one look at the world and go "You're all being morons! If you'd just stop and take the short, insignificant moment that it takes to think about what you are doing you'll realize that it's just plain stupid and there are better ways to do things."

Assuming that doesn't stick means one of two things:
1) The people are misguided and just don't want to hear advice that goes against their beliefs, no matter how stupid they may be. I don't believe in forcing people to be smart if they don't want to be, so I leave them alone.
2) The people are deliberately doing things wrong, and it's perfectly acceptable to stop them by whatever means. (i.e. They're the "Bad Guys".)
So when I'm presented with a conflict in which there are clear Bad Guys that's easy enough to deal with: whack them. But when presented with a grey moral conflict…………I basically assume that how I'd like to solve the thing won't work and leave them to their free will.

Don't assume that a campaign's challenges are too big for the PCs to change, even if they seem that way. Try looking at the campaigns that way, and seeing if you can't start finding some appeal in them.

Then why are they presented like that? I can't see the point in something being presented in a way that makes it seem worse than it is. How, then, do you know how bad it really is? If I didn't make my assumption it would seem more like settings featuring such things were just playgrounds of whiny kids, and that's not something I have the patience for.

 

[Rechan]

At this point, fork the "HOpeless Situation" discussion, because I don't see it ending any time soon and it's derailing the thread.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

At this point, fork the "HOpeless Situation" discussion, because I don't see it ending any time soon and it's derailing the thread.

Sorry.

But I'd rather just end it than continue.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Sorry.

But I'd rather just end it than continue.

You figure it's a hopeless battle, eh?

 

[Doug McCrae]

I hope this didn't come up and I missed it, but what's the appeal of adding firearms in D&D?

Guns are cool. It's fun to shoot people in the face.

Why do people like critical misses? I don't mean "critical miss" as in "doesn't hit," I mean "you drop your weapon" or "you slice off your own arm."

Slapstick.

On Lovecraft, the major draw for me is the look of the monsters. HPL may have been a lousy writer but he had a fantastic visual imagination.

 

[Hereticus]

At least for me? I want to play a million characters. I don't get so attached that I'd want to continue after they die. I'd rather just shift to something new. Death is the opportunity to play something new.

I see the gaming experience 100% differently.

Most players that I've seen role play well, created a character and put alot of imagination and forethought into it, and had generated some attachment (familiarity) to it.

 

[Jack7]

Okay, my turn.

What is up with all the sub races? I know 4e got rid of that, but back in 2e and 3e they seemed kind of popular. I never saw the need for all the different types of dwarves and elves and orcs and whatever just because the enviroment they lived in was different. Of course there were other reasons for sub races but that seemed to be the main one.

I think it may be that sub-races are an easy fantasy trope way of approaching sub-cultures. That is it is easier to give some small and yet easily recognizable physical variation (or whatever the type of variation might be) in a group of creatures and then call them a sub-race, when what you're really trying to demonstrate is a sub-culture. But a sub-culture can be a difficult and complicated thing to express so instead you develop a caricature of it and call it a sub-race.

It's the same as with Classes. Classes aren't really about classes, the fighter may be a Nobleman or he may be a Peasant. But class is a short hand way of saying Profession, but not professional as in Soldier, more like "adventuring brawler." Or gun for hire. So whereas class doesn't really mean class at all, though it implies something about class, sub-race sometimes doesn't really mean sub-race at all, it means sub-culture.

 

[Bumbles]

Ok, I have thought of another...

Riddles and other such puzzles. Especially the long tedious ones, like those logic ones you need a chart to figure out.

I can get puzzles in real life, and I like mysteries in games, but do I want to do a crossword playing a game?

 

[Doug McCrae]

I can get puzzles in real life, and I like mysteries in games, but do I want to do a crossword playing a game?

It's variety of challenge. Lets you take a break from all that tedious roleplaying.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I don't the get the importance of character death.

When a PC dies it means the PC's player has failed.