Unpopular opinions go here

[Guest 7042500]

To some extent, yes. I'm not sure "persuade" or "diplomacy" or whatever they call it should be needed to hire ordinary people, but oh well. I think the AP had rules for hiring. It wasn't the end of the world, just a bit annoying.

 

[MGibster]

Woke sauce is delicious and makes meat taste meatier and fruit taste frutier.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Oh, I dunno - some people are simply adept in seeing the flaw or glitch in things that others overlook or ignore, or at thinking outside the box and coming up with a different answer than most others would.

And those people are rare enough that if you think that's you, well, let's say I'd have to say you (in the generic sense) may be showing part of the problem.

The first thing you should be examining is what you're seeing, to make sure you've really got it right and that you haven't overlooked some key element that's making everyone else see it differently.

To me that is looking at you first.

Self-examination only leads to self-criticism and then self-doubt, which doesn't often get anyone anywhere.

Not buying it. Its the first step to addressing your own issues. You just have to not stop there.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm with @Lanefan here. The whole, "PCs are special and precious" thing does not work for me.

So? Again, that's you. Its not the everyone, its not even, far as I can tell, the majority of the hobby. There's a subset like that, but even those who want more mundane range characters don't have to get there by random generation.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So? Again, that's you. Its not the everyone, its not even, far as I can tell, the majority of the hobby. There's a subset like that, but even those who want more mundane range characters don't have to get there by random generation.

Why would I care what the majority wants? I'm not trying to sell a game to as many people as possible to appease my profit-hungry shareholders.

 

[Cadence]

Why would I care what the majority wants? I'm not trying to sell a game to as many people as possible to appease my profit-hungry shareholders.

Depends on what the conversation is. If it's about what we would put in our dream game then you don't need to. If it is about a game that needs to do that then it feels important if one wants to meaningfully add to the discussion. (The number of times I have to go check how a thread is tagged...).

 

[Micah Sweet]

Depends on what the conversation is. If it's about what we would put in our dream game then you don't need to. If it is about a game that needs to do that then it feels important if one wants to meaningfully add to the discussion. (The number of times I have to go check how a thread is tagged...).

Fair enough. This thread isn't really tagged as anything though.

 

[Hussar]

Oh, I dunno - some people are simply adept in seeing the flaw or glitch in things that others overlook or ignore, or at thinking outside the box and coming up with a different answer than most others would.

The first thing you should be examining is what you're seeing, to make sure you've really got it right and that you haven't overlooked some key element that's making everyone else see it differently.

Self-examination only leads to self-criticism and then self-doubt, which doesn't often get anyone anywhere.

Actually self criticism leads to self improvement and is probably the number one most important thing in a make-a-human kit.

Lack of self awareness and consequently self criticism is responsible for pretty much all the evil in the world.

 

[Hussar]

Why would I care what the majority wants? I'm not trying to sell a game to as many people as possible to appease my profit-hungry shareholders.

Because other people enjoy different things than you do and insisting the game must only cater to your tastes is both selfish and self defeating? Also it’s denying even the possibility that there might be better ways of doing something or that elements of a game can be improved through trial and error?

But hey, why care right? Nothing can ever be improved upon and experience counts for nothing.

How are you enjoying your flatbread without tomatoes?

 

[pemerton]

I've never bought into the attitude of "my character concept overrides everything", especially when it forces the DM to include or add things to the setting that weren't otherwise going to be there and-or that she didn't want to have there (e.g. a player insisting on playing a Dragonborn in a setting where they don't exist).

I'm with @Lanefan here. The whole, "PCs are special and precious" thing does not work for me.

The whole "my world concept is special and precious and overrides everything" thing does not work for me!

Luke Crane has a nice discussion of this in Burning Wheel (Character Burner, rev ed, p 13):

If the GM proposes a game without magic, there's always that one player who's got to play the last*mage. And you know what? That's good. Before the game has even started we have a spark of conflict - we have the player getting involved in shaping the situation. Discuss the situation of the game as you discuss your character concept. Tie them both together - a dying world without magic, the last mage, the quest to restore the land. In one volley of discussion you've got an epic in the making. Start mixing in the other character concepts - they should all be so tied to the background - and you have the makings of a *game. The cult priestess sworn to aid he last mage . . . and then spill his blood so that the world can be reborn; the Lord High Inquisitor whose duty is to hunt the Gifted, but whose own brother is the last hope. Now we're talking.​

Shared development of character, setting and situation seems preferable, to me at least.