Unpopular opinions go here

[MGibster]

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

Nah. The rules match the fiction just fine. It's just that the fiction focuses on the dramatic parts of a vampire's life rather than the day-to-day tedium of unlife. i.e. We're seeing the parts of the vampire's unlife that makes for a good story not years or decades where nothing interesting is happening.

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.

That's fair. The only thing I remember about Shadowrun rules is that they're a colossal pain in the rear. But from what I recall, it suffered a common cyberpunk problem in that it was healthier and more profitable to start your own car thieving ring than it was to be a shadowrunner. But that's boring.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

In my 30 years of gaming, with multiple groups, I have never experienced a group where "cohesion is entirely optional." You either work with the party, or you don't play. You can have solo adventures and personal roleplay moments or interparty conflict that gets RP'ed out--those are both great--but if you choose to work against the party, you either work it out with the GM in advance (e.g., the Imperial spy I mentioned) or you don't play.

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.

But why would that benevolent healer want to join a party where other party members are likely to turn on it?

If a party member stole from you, why would you continue to adventure with that person?

The only reason I can think of is a metareason--you want to continue to play the game so you put up with other player shenanigans while doing your own shenanigans, because you know the other players also want to play. I can't play that way.

 

[Lanefan]

Nah. The rules match the fiction just fine. It's just that the fiction focuses on the dramatic parts of a vampire's life rather than the day-to-day tedium of unlife. i.e. We're seeing the parts of the vampire's unlife that makes for a good story not years or decades where nothing interesting is happening.

Fair enough, but if the rules don't or can't support those years-decades where nothing is happening it's still a bug.

There's an example in D&D (all editions) of a similar thing that's always annoyed me, and I've mentioned it on the forum numerous times before: what happens to someone's class skills and abilities once they stop adventuring and-or grow old and-or stop pursuing that class? There's no mechanics for it*, and the rules say nothing, thus implying the 80-year old guy hobbling around on a cane is as good a fighter now as he was in his 14th-level prime 50 years ago, which is, in the fiction, ludicrous.

And while one could say this doesn't affect day-to-day play believe me, it does. When I want to make an NPC bartender who used to be a 10th level Fighter but packed in his warrior ways fifteen years ago, I want the game mechanics to tell me what he still has going for him as a Fighter and what he doesn't such that when the PCs pick a fight with him I know how to run him in combat; and I want the game mechanics to do it so I can consistently apply the same things next time.

* - 1e at least had base stats change with age, which is a start, but still doesn't speak to class skills.

 

[Lanefan]

In my 30 years of gaming, with multiple groups, I have never experienced a group where "cohesion is entirely optional." You either work with the party, or you don't play. You can have solo adventures and personal roleplay moments or interparty conflict that gets RP'ed out--those are both great--but if you choose to work against the party, you either work it out with the GM in advance (e.g., the Imperial spy I mentioned) or you don't play.


But why would that benevolent healer want to join a party where other party members are likely to turn on it?

Many possible reasons. Maybe he's been made promises nobody intends to keep. Maybe he's been paid well. Maybe he naively thinks he can change their evil ways. Maybe he's got no choice in the moment e.g. the party have rescued him from something worse.

And maybe once he's run with this crew for an adventure he'll retire, and the player will roll up somehting else. Or maybe he'll save the party and they'll keep him around as a valued member and henceforth not mess with him. Who knows?

If a party member stole from you, why would you continue to adventure with that person?

Because maybe that person is otherwise useful enough to be worth keeping around; and I can always get my pound of flesh later.

Or, maybe the thief does get run out of the party, or killed where he stands. So be it; wouldn't be the first time I've seen it happen. Fortunately, rolling up a new character is fairly easy, and the thief - if still alive - is still out there for later reintroduction...or tracking down, whichever.

 

[overgeeked]

Fair enough, but if the rules don't or can't support those years-decades where nothing is happening it's still a bug.

There's an example in D&D (all editions) of a similar thing that's always annoyed me, and I've mentioned it on the forum numerous times before: what happens to someone's class skills and abilities once they stop adventuring and-or grow old and-or stop pursuing that class? There's no mechanics for it*, and the rules say nothing, thus implying the 80-year old guy hobbling around on a cane is as good a fighter now as he was in his 14th-level prime 50 years ago, which is, in the fiction, ludicrous.

And while one could say this doesn't affect day-to-day play believe me, it does. When I want to make an NPC bartender who used to be a 10th level Fighter but packed in his warrior ways fifteen years ago, I want the game mechanics to tell me what he still has going for him as a Fighter and what he doesn't such that when the PCs pick a fight with him I know how to run him in combat; and I want the game mechanics to do it so I can consistently apply the same things next time.

* - 1e at least had base stats change with age, which is a start, but still doesn't speak to class skills.

We did level drain for that. The ratio fluctuated. I think the last time it came up we used -1 level per 5 years of not adventuring. So the King who campaigned in his younger days and reached 10th level as a fighter who then spent 20 years riding a throne would only be 6th level. It's a kludge, but it worked well enough.

 

[Nikosandros]

In my 30 years of gaming, with multiple groups, I have never experienced a group where "cohesion is entirely optional." You either work with the party, or you don't play. You can have solo adventures and personal roleplay moments or interparty conflict that gets RP'ed out--those are both great--but if you choose to work against the party, you either work it out with the GM in advance (e.g., the Imperial spy I mentioned) or you don't play.

Back in my high-school days, I ran a Rolemaster campaign for a peculiar group of players. After a few sessions, they began to plot against each other with great gusto. At first it was entertaining to referee and the players praised my fairness and the fact that I was able to keep track of all the "hidden" actions going on, but after a while it became a bit exhausting for me. We stopped for Summer and I quietly dropped the game so that we didn't start back next Fall.

 

[Alzrius]

We did level drain for that. The ratio fluctuated. I think the last time it came up we used -1 level per 5 years of not adventuring. So the King who campaigned in his younger days and reached 10th level as a fighter who then spent 20 years riding a throne would only be 6th level. It's a kludge, but it worked well enough.

Which reminds me of another unpopular opinion of mine: level drain in AD&D served a purpose, in that it could be used to keep the game at its so-called "sweet spot" (in terms of level advancement) for longer. If you thought the game worked at its best between, say, 5th and 13th level, then level-draining spells and monsters kept it there longer.

Of course, nobody likes the idea of advancement becoming Sisyphean in nature, so it's no surprise that everyone hated that, but it still served a purpose.

 

[Autumnal]

Nah. If I was required to absolutely trust my GM's judgment, I'd have been out of the hobby 40 years ago. I'm more prone to wanting to trust their intentions, but even with that, there are too many GMs who have been trained to have an excessively top-down approach for me to even automatically write them off on that grounds.

Seriously. I don’t trust my own judgment that absolutely, let alone anyone else’s. I look for trust and respect as foundations for working things out. And if I see general, larger-context attitudes I like, I’m willing to work on it over time in play.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That's fair. The only thing I remember about Shadowrun rules is that they're a colossal pain in the rear. But from what I recall, it suffered a common cyberpunk problem in that it was healthier and more profitable to start your own car thieving ring than it was to be a shadowrunner. But that's boring.

Oh, that was an issue too, but I was thinking of some combat results mentioned in the fiction bits that were just--not possible.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Seriously. I don’t trust my own judgment that absolutely, let alone anyone else’s. I look for trust and respect as foundations for working things out. And if I see general, larger-context attitudes I like, I’m willing to work on it over time in play.

Same. There are people I won't play with (at least as a player) because I know they project their idea of "fun" a bit too much on everyone else, but in most cases I'm willing to quietly go "Could we reign in the X, please?"