Oh, you were most definitely a heavy, as Marc as a Mercurian Superior tends to favor keeping humans alive, and his Word focuses on fair and profitable bargains. It's always useful to have a less restricted heavy on loan as they can break normal rules. And who else can smother vice with a grandma, colorful adverbs, and a rubber chicken? (If anyone can do it, it is them.)

Quote from: Opaopajr;762003Pro tip: ask the GM, it's their setting.

This is only useful advice if the DM isn't an inconsistent asshole and/or doesn't have a personal vendetta against you.

The vast majority of DMs I have dealt with did not fall under either of those labels, and - funnily enough - I have not had major "walk away from the table" issues (alignment or otherwise) with them. But I have had a couple who most certainly did.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;762242This is only useful advice if the DM isn't an inconsistent asshole and/or doesn't have a personal vendetta against you.

The vast majority of DMs I have dealt with did not fall under either of those labels.

You're not exactly banishing the stereotype that RAW people are reacting to bad GM experiences.

Quote from: CRKrueger;762243You're not exactly banishing the stereotype that RAW people are reacting to bad GM experiences.

Does it really matter?

That argument is... very tired. I don't even care about winning or losing it anymore. It doesn't matter. I'm sure I have explained elsewhere, in probably excruciating detail, why I am more mechanics-focused than a lot of people here.

If those points continue to fall on deaf ears... why should I care, anymore? If people are willing to be dismissive because of what they perceive as my reasoning behind my particular approach, then chances are pretty solid that the actual reasoning doesn't matter: they'll find another reason to be dismissive. It just feels pretty fucking pointless to keep arguing the point and trying to make my case.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;762244Does it really matter?

That argument is... very tired. I don't even care about winning or losing it anymore. It doesn't matter. I'm sure I have explained elsewhere, in probably excruciating detail, why I am more mechanics-focused than a lot of people here.

You're the one who brought it up.  When you're using the fact that you don't or feel you can't trust GM's to be competent or non-hostile to answer points, it does kinda matter, doesn't it?

Quote from: GnomeWorks;762242This is only useful advice if the DM isn't an inconsistent asshole and/or doesn't have a personal vendetta against you.

The vast majority of DMs I have dealt with did not fall under either of those labels, and - funnily enough - I have not had major "walk away from the table" issues (alignment or otherwise) with them. But I have had a couple who most certainly did.

How weird, to be a player with assholes willingly. I have seen what you talk about but that is an RPGA/Society/Living thing, IME. As a GM I keep playing with RPGA victims/players who are learning to unclench from this poisoned GM-PC dynamic.

At least you acknowledge such issues are rare from your experience. Most people fixate on their bad experiences while glossing over the good. There is no game, system, or structure anywhere immune from assholes. It is a fact of life uncorrectable and unremovable. Give up on this non-argument.

Quote from: CRKrueger;762257You're the one who brought it up.  When you're using the fact that you don't or feel you can't trust GM's to be competent or non-hostile to answer points, it does kinda matter, doesn't it?

I also said that such asshole DMs were a rarity.

The argument that the only people who enjoy strong rule sets are those who have been dicked over by shit DMs in the past is a very tired argument.

Believe it or not, there are many reasons to enjoy stronger mechanics, and to prefer groups that strongly adhere to those rules rather than expect the DM to make up things on the fly.

Quote from: Opaopajr;762272How weird, to be a player with assholes willingly. I have seen what you talk about but that is an RPGA/Society/Living thing, IME. As a GM I keep playing with RPGA victims/players who are learning to unclench from this poisoned GM-PC dynamic.

I don't play under either of those DMs anymore. I acknowledged there was a problem, saw that there was only going to be more trouble down the line, and gracefully bowed out.

QuoteAt least you acknowledge such issues are rare from your experience. Most people fixate on their bad experiences while glossing over the good. There is no game, system, or structure anywhere immune from assholes. It is a fact of life uncorrectable and unremovable. Give up on this non-argument.

I just don't care for alignment because I think it's wonky and doesn't really fit my personal views of how morality and ethics work. Trying to shoehorn everybody into nine little boxes really bugs me and does not match my experience.

The fact that alignment has apparently caused arguments since pretty much the beginning is just kinda icing on the cake, so far as I'm concerned.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;762337I also said that such asshole DMs were a rarity.

Ah, you meant labels "an inconsistent asshole" and "have a personal vendetta", instead of labels "isn't an inconsistent asshole" and "doesn't have a personal vendetta against you".

[Gilda Radner]Nevermind.[/Gilda Radner]

Carry on.

Quote from: CRKrueger;762340Carry on.

Haha, yeah, sorry for the confusion. I vaguely remember looking at the grammar this morning and getting mixed up on it for a moment myself, so I'm not surprised you parsed it opposite of my intent.

Honestly, I've mostly ignored alignment forever in my own games. I've never in my life, seen alignment actually have a positive impact on a game, so I'm not sure why anyone is such a staunch defender of it.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;762242This is only useful advice if the DM isn't an inconsistent asshole and/or doesn't have a personal vendetta against you.

Which means it's useful advice.  The only useful advice if the GM is an inconsistent asshole/has a vendetta is "don't play with him."

Quote from: GnomeWorks;762337I also said that such asshole DMs were a rarity.

The argument that the only people who enjoy strong rule sets are those who have been dicked over by shit DMs in the past is a very tired argument.

Lots of people enjoy strong rulesets.  The argument isn't that "only people that have been dicked over enjoy strong rulesets".  The argument is that "people who argue for strong rulesets because they prevent getting dicked over, have probably been dicked over."

Quote from: GnomeWorks;762337Believe it or not, there are many reasons to enjoy stronger mechanics, and to prefer groups that strongly adhere to those rules rather than expect the DM to make up things on the fly.

Sure, and that's fine.  (There's also the issue of "where are the rules", as for instance I play Fate very by-the-rules, but it's a game that, by the rules, requires much GM adjudication.  So it kinda doesn't really fit either category).

Give us those reasons rather than "it prevents GMs from dicking us over/prevents arguments/...", and it will go far to show that the preference *isn't* because you've been dicked over and are suffering PDGMSD.

Quote from: robiswrong;762354Give us those reasons rather than "it prevents GMs from dicking us over/prevents arguments/...", and it will go far to show that the preference *isn't* because you've been dicked over and are suffering PDGMSD.

I am removing my response because it was unnecessarily angry and overly reactionary.

It is unfair of me to assume that you have participated in the number of threads over the past couple months in which I have defended my position.

Given that this question veers from the thread topic, I will post a more thorough response in a new thread. I will quote this "request" to clarify why I am starting that thread.

I will then put a link to that thread in my sig, so that we do not need to go over this conversation again, and again, and again.

Quote from: Bill;761970I have observed that the majority of players ignore their alignment and play something close to Neutral Evil. While rationalizing it to be their stated alignment.

It sounds like they're Roleplaying people. Can't there be value in that rationalization? It tells you a lot about how the character sees the world, for instance. Maybe even more about how the player sees the world. It at least recognizes the tension between what they want to do and the person they want the character to be. So what if they find a way to rationalize the behavior? Rationalization is fascinating.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;762359I am removing my response because it was unnecessarily angry and overly reactionary.

It is unfair of me to assume that you have participated in the number of threads over the past couple months in which I have defended my position.

Given that this question veers from the thread topic, I will post a more thorough response in a new thread. I will quote this "request" to clarify why I am starting that thread.

I will then put a link to that thread in my sig, so that we do not need to go over this conversation again, and again, and again.

Cool.

Please keep in mind that I am *explicitly* not saying either of the two following statements:

1) "Strong" rulesets are bad.
2) People who like "strong" rulesets only do so because of bad GM experiences.

I'll even do you one better:

1) There are some things that strong rulesets do better than lighter rulesets.

Quote from: Noclue;762364It sounds like they're Roleplaying people. Can't there be value in that rationalization? It tells you a lot about how the character sees the world, for instance. Maybe even more about how the player sees the world. It at least recognizes the tension between what they want to do and the person they want the character to be. So what if they find a way to rationalize the behavior? Rationalization is fascinating.

Rationalization is fascinating.

But I find it tiresome to listen to a person lie and claim to be good, claim what they are doing is good, etc...

Just admit you enjoy playing an evil monster.