Unpopular opinions go here

[pemerton]

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

So Socrates had it backwards - an examined life is not worth living?

 

[Cadence]

So Socrates had it backwards - an examined life is not worth living?

Guy did die of progressive centripetal paralysis... so maybe it didn't work great for him?

(I kid. Mostly.)

 

[Alzrius]

Guy did die of progressive centripetal paralysis... so maybe it didn't work great for him?

(I kid. Mostly.)

Still better than having an eagle drop a turtle on your head because it thought your head was a rock. (Poor Aeschylus.)

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Why do you care what anyone else on here says, then? I'm pretty sure anyone who's paying attention is aware of your tastes by now, Micah.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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?

You can allow people to enjoy different things without forcing them all into one game. It's not as hard as you think.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

It's a good thing there are many different games out there to cater to different tastes then.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why do you care what anyone else on here says, then? I'm pretty sure anyone who's paying attention is aware of your tastes by now, Micah.

Well, people keep appealing to popularity as if means something beyond how much money a company can make, and somehow actually means one thing is better than another because more people like it.

Also, I'm open to being pleasantly surprised.

 

[MGibster]

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

That's why I start every morning staring into my mirror, giving myself my daily refutation, "You're not good enough, smart enough, and doggone it, nobody likes you."

 

[Cadence]

You can allow people to enjoy different things without forcing them all into one game. It's not as hard as you think.

I believe the one rule is that @Hussar can't be in any with ship to ship combat iirc.

(On a side note, I've only been in one with very brief ship to ship combat, and if someone wanted to run a play by post one on here I would sign up).

 

[Lanefan]

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. ​

No, before the game starts you've got a player already showing unwillingness to play the game as presented. Solution: recruit another player.