This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Which do you prefer: "up front" disadvantages or "constant" ones? Or none at all?

Started by PoppySeed45, November 27, 2011, 09:52:53 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Opaopajr

Essentially it's true, you can expect players to metagame the hell out of everything.

This is especially so if they feel RPGs are something to "win against," in spite of other people involved and this being ideally a shared form of fun. I don't think there's a way to take that aspect of human nature out of games in general, which is why I don't want it as system option present if I can avoid it. But if it's going to be there by the system's own emphasis, letting players take a big dump on the shared table experience, I found having it less in my face repeatedly tends to keep my blood pressure down. YMMV.
Just make your fuckin\' guy and roll the dice, you pricks. Focus on what\'s interesting, not what gives you the biggest randomly generated virtual penis.  -- J Arcane
 
You know, people keep comparing non-TSR D&D to deck-building in Magic: the Gathering. But maybe it\'s more like Katamari Damacy. You keep sticking shit on your characters until they are big enough to be a star.
-- talysman