Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 2842802" data-attributes="member: 18280">Heh.  Allow me to complete my heresy against the current ideation of role-playing games.   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> There is no such thing as "badfun".  Either something is fun, or it is not.  If it isn't fun for the person investing the most time (responsibility) into the game, though, that person has the option (right) to veto it.  As I said earlier, there is no rational system by which responsibility does not entail the rights needed to meet that responsibility. Frankly, only a group that divides responsibilities equally should divide rights equally.  They exist, and if you're in one of them, that's wonderful.However, that doesn't mean that all means of running a game are of equal value.Repeat:  That doesn't mean that all means of running a game are of equal value.Games and methods of running a game are subject to criticism in the same way that movies, books, or art are subject to criticism.  You may like a movie that has problems from a critical standpoint, and those problems might not detract from your enjoyment one iota.  That doesn't make watching the movie "badfun" nor, conversely, does your enjoyment of that movie make the  criticism invalid.The entire "badfun" argument, IMHO, is basically an attempt to prevent others from analyzing approaches to the game critically.  Frankly, this is an idea that I utterly reject.Reading is fun.  No reading is badfun.  However, if you are a 40-year-old whose reading consists of "See Spot Run" this is qualitiatively different than reading Jane Austin.  Still not badfun, though.  Better "See Spot Run" than nothing.If the OP's opinion is that players only choose these types of characters for crunchy phat powerz, then only (1) directly applies, but (3), (4), and (7) apply at least tangentially.  (3) implies that the DM might be partially to blame for the problem, and (4) applies to the same at least tangentially.However, I believe the OP also asked why people play these sorts of characters.  Others claimed it was due to a deep, abiding need to role play a flumph (obvious paraphrase here) or that somehow it is more imaginative to role play a flumph as a human than a human as a human.(1) to (9), inclusively, address those contentions.You can say "A lousy player is a lousy player whether he has a human fighter or a dwarven half-fiend favored soul knife" but this begs the question, Why let the lousy player play a dwarven half-fiend favored soul knife in your campaign in the first place?  The odds are pretty good that most of us can role play a human believably.  With very, very few exceptions, we are human, after all.  Letting the player play such an outlandish character merely cheapens all of the components the character is made of.That he can find a group that suits him doesn't mean its badfun.  Finding that group doesn't make it goodfun, either.  Neither prevents one from looking at the player, the character, the game, or the campaign dynamics with a critical eye.</blockquote>

Verification