Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Affliction & Tradeoffs

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Affliction & Tradeoffs

    My point wasn't that you have to do it my way, my point was that for some groups embracing that does actually work, and is not abuse. Linking particular things, like combinations of advantages or powers, to abuse and unfair players is a blatant generalization that will inadvertently include players and groups who are doing it for the right reasons in ways that work very well for their playstyle - which is what my example of the 'pure 18s' example was about.

    All the players in the game decided without active permission from me that they wanted players with 18s in all the stats. Instead of denying it and saying it was against the rules or cheating, I embraced it, and it was one of the most enjoyable games i've ever gmed. Were the players doing it to feel powerful, and be 'better' than intended? Absolutely. Could I adapt my gming style to allow it? Absolutely.

    The most powerful tool in a GMs toolbox is the word 'yes'.

    Forcing players to not use combinations like that, if that is what they like (and especially if that is what they are used to or expect) can be just as harmful as forcing players to use such combinations. Working with the whole group to come up with something that balance all players is important - not whether you allow or disallow anything in particular.
    Last edited by Nelphine; 05-20-2016, 10:26 AM.
    Ragtop, Autobot! And Zeanthara, Are You a God?
    Fenix, in the Merge, and Alicia DeVries, in the Cosmic Merge
    Supe of the Justice League Academy

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Affliction & Tradeoffs

      Originally posted by Nelphine View Post
      Linking particular things, like combinations of advantages or powers, to abuse and unfair players is a blatant generalization
      Nobody is doing that. It doesn't work anyway, because the unfair players will just move on to rules abuses that are less obvious and therefore can't be caught until too late.

      When you look at a player, you have to look at their attitude and not just what's on their sheet.

      The most powerful tool in a GMs toolbox is the word 'yes'.

      Forcing players to not use combinations like that, if that is what they like (and especially if that is what they are used to or expect) can be just as harmful as forcing players to use such combinations. Working with the whole group to come up with something that balance all players is important - not whether you allow or disallow anything in particular.
      This is the first thing you've ever said that I can agree with. I'll add just one thing: not everyone is a good fit for every group, and that's just fine. Choosing players wisely, if you can do it, isn't elitism but something that'll save both sides lots of grief in the long run.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Affliction & Tradeoffs

        Ah ha! I knew we had common ground somewhere. And yes I agree with that statement.

        And I guess its your apparent intensity when you post about problem players that makes it sound like you link particular rule choices with those problem players. At least I definitely get that impression, even if its not what you intend.
        Ragtop, Autobot! And Zeanthara, Are You a God?
        Fenix, in the Merge, and Alicia DeVries, in the Cosmic Merge
        Supe of the Justice League Academy

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Affliction & Tradeoffs

          I wholeheartedly agree with Ysariel on these issue: Don't play with unfair players (& GMs), trying to reign in their antics with rules is moot.

          On the original topic, I've decided to play this scenario strictly by RAW - the first breakout-roll is against the modified DC, all subsequent ones against the original DC. Sounds IMHO like a fair compromise between both interpretations.
          Hey, sometimes RAW actually makes sense...
          https://roninarmy.com/forum/atomic-think-tank/roll-call/7149-bothrops-pit#post7149

          Comment

          Working...
          X