Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 8426133" data-attributes="member: 7026617">I didn't ever even see the other thread (I still haven't); the only reason I knew about it was you referenced it, and rangers.And I think trying to separate what the players think from what the characters think is, if not a waste of time, still assuming most people will draw a sharper line there than I have any sign they'll do.&nbsp; Note I mentioned earlier that even if it makes sense in the world, many players will either just not participate if forced that way, or participate and act like its not true.Now if you want to act like everyone, or even a majority of people will ignore what they feel because its not entirely congruent with the setting, well, carry on; maybe the kind of players you've hit are better about that than the average run.&nbsp; But don't be surprised if you hit people who don't.&nbsp; And no adjustment of the setting, per se, will change that; its a less extreme version of the people who play some version of the same character no matter where the game is set or even what genre, and those aren't exactly rare, either.&nbsp; [Edit: to make it clear, I'm not trying to threadcrap; I'm just suggesting that the issue you're looking at isn't entirely possible to handle at the setting design end.&nbsp; Its another case where you have to get full and genuine buy-in by people, and I'm not sold that's all that entirely common.&nbsp; I watched someone stubbornly insist on building someone with no magic and no cyberware in a Shadowrun 1e game many a year ago, and that was a setting, character convention and system that really counterselected for that, but he did it anyway].</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thomas Shey, post: 8426133, member: 7026617"] I didn't [I]ever even see[/I] the other thread (I still haven't); the only reason I knew about it was you referenced it, and rangers. And I think trying to separate what the players think from what the characters think is, if not a waste of time, still assuming most people will draw a sharper line there than I have any sign they'll do. Note I mentioned earlier that even if it makes sense in the world, many players will either just not participate if forced that way, or participate and act like its not true. Now if you want to act like everyone, or even a majority of people will ignore what they feel because its not entirely congruent with the setting, well, carry on; maybe the kind of players you've hit are better about that than the average run. But don't be surprised if you hit people who don't. And no adjustment of the setting, per se, will change that; its a less extreme version of the people who play some version of the same character no matter where the game is set or even what genre, and those aren't exactly rare, either. [Edit: to make it clear, I'm not trying to threadcrap; I'm just suggesting that the issue you're looking at isn't entirely possible to handle at the setting design end. Its another case where you have to get full and genuine buy-in by people, and I'm not sold that's all that entirely common. I watched someone stubbornly insist on building someone with no magic and no cyberware in a Shadowrun 1e game many a year ago, and that was a setting, character convention and system that really counterselected for that, but he did it anyway]. [/QUOTE]

Verification