Unpopular opinions go here

[Lanefan]

So your table plays evil characters?

Sometimes. They're certainly allowed.

Why would anyone travel with anyone they don't trust to not slit their throats?

Because they're looking to do the slitting first? Or they don't (yet) realize their companion isn't trustworthy? Or because they've got no real choice? There's loads of reasons, and I've probably seen every one of 'em.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Because they're looking to do the slitting first? Or they don't (yet) realize their companion isn't trustworthy? Or because they've got no real choice?

Because they’re super näive, and can’t even recognize the red flags everyone else sees clearly.

 

[Hussar]

But sometimes you want to be straightforward. It's much easier for me to answer "is there someplace to hide" versus "what's in the room," assuming you're trying to hide.

This is a good example of what I mean. If you ask what is in the room, I’d probably give a fairly perfunctory answer- depending on the room. But “is there somewhere I can hide gets me to think about the room. And most of the time, the answer will be yes, even if I hadn’t actually described the room beforehand.

Because giving the player somewhere to hide is much more fun than playing twenty questions about the features of a room.

 

[Faolyn]

Sometimes. They're certainly allowed.

Because they're looking to do the slitting first? Or they don't (yet) realize their companion isn't trustworthy? Or because they've got no real choice? There's loads of reasons, and I've probably seen every one of 'em.

There's plenty of "real choice." The choice is "make a character who isn't a backstabbing expletive-deleted and is willing to work with the group, not sabotage it for their own fun."

Personally, I wouldn't play with a person who would repeatedly make characters like that because I couldn't trust them to play as part of a cohesive group game. It's one thing if it truly makes sense for the setting, and it only happens in that one game--I played a Star Wars game where there was a player who was an Imperial spy in a Republic party, but he certainly didn't make a habit of that sort of thing. They might be fun to hang out for other events, but not in a game.

 

[MGibster]

Most RPGs don’t stand up to rigid scrutiny out of the box with regard to verisimilitude and consistency; those that do are not that fun.

They really don't, and I'm not sure they should. On Reddit, I was reading a thread about Vampire 5th edition where someone was complaining that there's no way a vampire could live for centuries based on the mechanics of the game. i.e. They're going to fail a hunger roll at some point or fail a roll bad enough that it's going to go very, very poorly for them. But I think they're missing the point. The mechanics are designed to facilitate drama (conflict) while we're playing. We don't really care what happened between 1940 and 2020, the rules are only designed for the chronicle (campaign) we're currently playing rather than a statement of how the world actually works.

 

[Lanefan]

There's plenty of "real choice." The choice is "make a character who isn't a backstabbing expletive-deleted and is willing to work with the group, not sabotage it for their own fun."

Personally, I wouldn't play with a person who would repeatedly make characters like that because I couldn't trust them to play as part of a cohesive group game.

It's a group game, sure, in that there's a group of people sitting at a table playing the game. Cohesion is entirely optional.

As long as it stays in character they can do what they like to each other, or to the world in general, and each other and-or the world are free to push back. You steal from me? Fine. Sooner or later I'll get my revenge, and in the meantime we'll both laugh about it out-of-character.

And players IME always mix up what they play - a player's character right now might be a perfectly decent sort but that same player might come back with a spy or assassin once that character dies, then come back with a benevolent healer for the character after that. I've had players whose characters might as well all be named Leroy Jenkins (I love characters like that - so much un to DM!), but I've never had a player whose every character was evil.

As for myself, I've probably played every alignment in the book at some point or other.

 

[Lanefan]

They really don't, and I'm not sure they should. On Reddit, I was reading a thread about Vampire 5th edition where someone was complaining that there's no way a vampire could live for centuries based on the mechanics of the game. i.e. They're going to fail a hunger roll at some point or fail a roll bad enough that it's going to go very, very poorly for them. But I think they're missing the point. The mechanics are designed to facilitate drama (conflict) while we're playing. We don't really care what happened between 1940 and 2020, the rules are only designed for the chronicle (campaign) we're currently playing rather than a statement of how the world actually works.

Apropos of another thread, that sounds like a case of the rules simply not matching the (larger-scale) fiction.

 

[Aldarc]

Bill Murray is the least funny part of Ghostbusters, and his womanizer character does not age well at all.

 

[Thomas Shey]

They really don't, and I'm not sure they should. On Reddit, I was reading a thread about Vampire 5th edition where someone was complaining that there's no way a vampire could live for centuries based on the mechanics of the game. i.e. They're going to fail a hunger roll at some point or fail a roll bad enough that it's going to go very, very poorly for them. But I think they're missing the point. The mechanics are designed to facilitate drama (conflict) while we're playing. We don't really care what happened between 1940 and 2020, the rules are only designed for the chronicle (campaign) we're currently playing rather than a statement of how the world actually works.

That's okay to a point, but you can run into situations where the mechanics make events impossible that seem to be intended to occur in the current fiction. Shadowrun was notorious in various editions for running up against this, particularly in the combat rules.

 

[aramis erak]

Hold the phone, Mexican food is a single cuisine?
<cries softly in Yucatán>

If true, someone better tell Philomath's El Crucero and Ixtapa that they're not Mexican... (El Crucero is Yucatan, and Ixtapa is from one of the south-of Mexico City provinces. I've asked at Ixtapa, and El Crucero advertizes their Yucatan style on the banner...)

THAT was originally a directive to a limited population for a limited time to stave off malnutrition issues. Religious leaders of various kinds have done similar things in the past. Some rabbis in the 1930s-40s advised their people to eat pork to avoid starvation when it was all they could get.

As I recall, you’ll find similar dispensations for whale & seal.

Having had whale, walrus, and seal...
Skip the walrus.
Muktuk (beluga whale blubber), to me, had a consistency of cheap bubble gum, and tasted like coconut soaked in seal oil... but it expands as one chews it... thin slices aren't bad.
Salmon in seal oil, when both are fresh-caught, is a delight. Especially on pilotbread. And served with good, strong, black coffee.

Yes, the above are all due to Yupiq and Inupiaq acquaintances and friends.

I'll pass on the Akutak, too... Non-hunting version? crisco, berries, and snow. Hunting version? Seal oil, berries, and snow. I've had both.

I think fresh walrus tastes like rancid beef soaked in rancid cod liver oil. And it's a world better than stored walrus.

Great... flashbacks to macaroni & cheese with Walrus from a potluck... almost enough to put me off food.