Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 4657073" data-attributes="member: 22779">I have a real problem when the game presumes that players will deliberately handicap themselves in service to other people's fun.&nbsp; Because that's what you're talking about.&nbsp; Superman, ignoring the telepathy bit for a second, if played by a Player and not a Writer, flies above Gotham, listens to the city with his super hearing, spies on the enemies with his x-ray vision, mops up the thugs in 2 seconds then goes and deals with the big bad guy.IME, players are far and away more pragmatic than any writer.You have mentioned more than a few times that you think &quot;Aid Another&quot; is good enough.&nbsp; Can you not understand that for many people it isn't?&nbsp; Reducing my character to a 1st level commoner is not fun for many people?&nbsp; Plus, in order to Aid Another, I have to expose myself to threats, which means that the enemy that can challenge the fighter can likely kill my rogue in one round.&nbsp; So, the DM either kills Bats every single time, or he plays his enemies as brain dead.&nbsp; Neither option is particularly appealing to me.&nbsp; Sure, you shouldn't play your baddies at 110% all the time (well, you can, but, that's a particular style of game), but, pretending that Lex Luthor is a drooling idiot is another thing too.I believe the word you want to use is homogenity.&nbsp; Hegemony means something entirely different.I would agree.&nbsp; I don't want everyone to be exactly the same.&nbsp; But, by the same token, balance =/= homogenity any more than imbalance equals creativity.I was accused upthread of beating a dead horse.&nbsp; Then please explain where I've missed the point.&nbsp; It seems to me that there are those claiming that imbalance makes a better game.&nbsp; That by having balanced characters, you wind up with homogeneous characters.&nbsp; I beg to differ.&nbsp; To me, imbalance leads far more often to homogeneous characters because, unless the player is deliberately handicapping himself, he will choose the better option every single time.Going back to superheroes for a second.&nbsp; Which would you rather play with - Superman's powers or Batman's powers?&nbsp; Note, I did not say anything about personality, since mechanics in no way dictate personality (typically).&nbsp; If you could play Batman's personality, with Superman's suite of powers, I'm thinking the vast majority of players would choose that over playing standard Batman.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 4657073, member: 22779"] I have a real problem when the game presumes that players will deliberately handicap themselves in service to other people's fun. Because that's what you're talking about. Superman, ignoring the telepathy bit for a second, if played by a Player and not a Writer, flies above Gotham, listens to the city with his super hearing, spies on the enemies with his x-ray vision, mops up the thugs in 2 seconds then goes and deals with the big bad guy. IME, players are far and away more pragmatic than any writer. You have mentioned more than a few times that you think "Aid Another" is good enough. Can you not understand that for many people it isn't? Reducing my character to a 1st level commoner is not fun for many people? Plus, in order to Aid Another, I have to expose myself to threats, which means that the enemy that can challenge the fighter can likely kill my rogue in one round. So, the DM either kills Bats every single time, or he plays his enemies as brain dead. Neither option is particularly appealing to me. Sure, you shouldn't play your baddies at 110% all the time (well, you can, but, that's a particular style of game), but, pretending that Lex Luthor is a drooling idiot is another thing too. I believe the word you want to use is homogenity. Hegemony means something entirely different. I would agree. I don't want everyone to be exactly the same. But, by the same token, balance =/= homogenity any more than imbalance equals creativity. I was accused upthread of beating a dead horse. Then please explain where I've missed the point. It seems to me that there are those claiming that imbalance makes a better game. That by having balanced characters, you wind up with homogeneous characters. I beg to differ. To me, imbalance leads far more often to homogeneous characters because, unless the player is deliberately handicapping himself, he will choose the better option every single time. Going back to superheroes for a second. Which would you rather play with - Superman's powers or Batman's powers? Note, I did not say anything about personality, since mechanics in no way dictate personality (typically). If you could play Batman's personality, with Superman's suite of powers, I'm thinking the vast majority of players would choose that over playing standard Batman. [/QUOTE]

Verification