Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 9860569" data-attributes="member: 7026617">I'll note you've hopped systems and made an assumption I was never making in my posts (&quot;rolled&quot;).&nbsp; I again ask, how intrinsically is a&nbsp; Hero player who takes a Disadvantage and one that sets an attribute low different?&nbsp; In both cases they've supplied themselves with more points for some things at least theoretical disadvantages them, and even if you're ignoring the attributes, the universalized statement &quot;The player should be the one that decides what their character does&quot; is clearly not a universal, including in a game you've played.Again, deliberately setting an attribute low and taking a disadvantage is different in what way?&nbsp; As far as I can tell, both are about taking a handicap in one area to have more resource elsewhere.&nbsp; And both carry some roleplaying expectations.&nbsp; At the very least, someone taking a weak Psychological Disad in Hero would expect if they ignored it a lot to either have a discussion with the GM, take an experience hit, or both.&nbsp; I'd expect the same thing would have happened to someone sidestepping a low Characteristic&nbsp; That doesn't seem to be placing player primacy in how the character is played as the highest priority.If you want to claim &quot;different games are different&quot; here, fine.&nbsp; But &quot;not remotely the same&quot; is a declaration, not an argument.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thomas Shey, post: 9860569, member: 7026617"] I'll note you've hopped systems and made an assumption I was never making in my posts ("rolled"). I again ask, how intrinsically is a Hero player who takes a Disadvantage and one that sets an attribute low different? In both cases they've supplied themselves with more points for some things at least theoretical disadvantages them, and even if you're ignoring the attributes, the universalized statement "The player should be the one that decides what their character does" is clearly [I]not[/I] a universal, including in a game you've played. Again, deliberately setting an attribute low and taking a disadvantage is different in what way? As far as I can tell, both are about taking a handicap in one area to have more resource elsewhere. And both carry some roleplaying expectations. At the very least, someone taking a weak Psychological Disad in Hero would expect if they ignored it a lot to either have a discussion with the GM, take an experience hit, or both. I'd expect the same thing would have happened to someone sidestepping a low Characteristic That doesn't seem to be placing player primacy in how the character is played as the highest priority. If you want to claim "different games are different" here, fine. But "not remotely the same" is a declaration, not an argument. [/QUOTE]

Verification