Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2018 3:26:57 GMT -8
This poor horse... no bones left. It's been mentioned several times already, but here we go again. The asexual rule is OPTIONAL, don't use it if you don't like it. That fixes nothing? It's like saying it's cool to have capitol punishment laws on the books even though you are against it because "They don't have to choose to sentence people to death." The inclusion of the rule is a problem. It creates arguments and strife between parties that may want to use it and those who don't think it should be used. Telling someone that something is optional is like saying "salt to taste". Well, no shit. We can all do whatever we want, until what we want conflicts. There is a single pot of soup that is the rules. Once someone dumps in the salt, we are all stuck eating salty soup. Rather than having to have an argument about whether to salt the pot of soup or not, we could just take the salt off the table (where it never belonged to begin with). Let me be the one to tell other people what game isn't for them this time. Monsterhearts is not a game for people who can't abide by being unable to determine their own emotions (or lack thereof). Don't ruin the game for others if you don't like it. Just step aside.
|
|
jedidroid
Initiate Douchebag
I feel a Glitch in the Force
Posts: 32
|
Post by jedidroid on May 7, 2018 3:32:14 GMT -8
Steven, I get it. I do understand the point you make.
But for me, this seems like a way to not let the dice get in the way of a good story, which is why I come to the table. I’ve seen many good stories in games get derailed by a bad roll. As such, I welcome a tool that lets the story flow better. And maybe it’s not how MH1 pushed story over dice, but it’s an option in MH2. So I’ll just agree to disagree with your conclusion, and let you play your way.
Akavidar, honestly, the discussion has changed the way I look at monsterhearts. I was initially hesitant to look at either MH as a possible game. With everybody’s input, and my own feeble efforts to understand, I see now that I could play this game. I’m not sure who with, but I would be willing to come to a table playing either edition once I trust the other players at it. Despite not changing opinions, the discussion has refined the understanding of the game and improved the wording of what works or doesn’t for those involved. So this isn’t so much flogging a dead horse as distilling the sour mash into a decent bourbon or rye.
|
|
jedidroid
Initiate Douchebag
I feel a Glitch in the Force
Posts: 32
|
Post by jedidroid on May 7, 2018 3:47:42 GMT -8
That fixes nothing? It's like saying it's cool to have capitol punishment laws on the books even though you are against it because "They don't have to choose to sentence people to death." The inclusion of the rule is a problem. It creates arguments and strife between parties that may want to use it and those who don't think it should be used. Telling someone that something is optional is like saying "salt to taste". Well, no shit. We can all do whatever we want, until what we want conflicts. There is a single pot of soup that is the rules. Once someone dumps in the salt, we are all stuck eating salty soup. Rather than having to have an argument about whether to salt the pot of soup or not, we could just take the salt off the table (where it never belonged to begin with). Let me be the one to tell other people what game isn't for them this time. Monsterhearts is not a game for people who can't abide by being unable to determine their own emotions (or lack thereof). Don't ruin the game for others if you don't like it. Just step aside. Okay, a little extreme in that first analogy. So the discussion on whether or not to use the rule should be in the boundaries section of setup, right? Get the decision sorted up front, session zero. To use your second analogy, instead of salting the pot, the optional rule is more like putting the salt on the table and letting it be added to each bowl separately. Where each group playing from the rule book is a bowl. I also think there is (or should be) sufficient distance between the player knowledge and the character knowledge that use of the asexuality clause isn’t the character choice, but a players choice for what makes a better story. Of course I’d expect the uses of said rule to be few and far between, and made on meta knowledge (I guess you’d call it). Still, you have very valid points, and those points should be front and centre in the discussion whether to include this rule at the table.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2018 3:53:11 GMT -8
That fixes nothing? It's like saying it's cool to have capitol punishment laws on the books even though you are against it because "They don't have to choose to sentence people to death." The inclusion of the rule is a problem. It creates arguments and strife between parties that may want to use it and those who don't think it should be used. Telling someone that something is optional is like saying "salt to taste". Well, no shit. We can all do whatever we want, until what we want conflicts. There is a single pot of soup that is the rules. Once someone dumps in the salt, we are all stuck eating salty soup. Rather than having to have an argument about whether to salt the pot of soup or not, we could just take the salt off the table (where it never belonged to begin with). Let me be the one to tell other people what game isn't for them this time. Monsterhearts is not a game for people who can't abide by being unable to determine their own emotions (or lack thereof). Don't ruin the game for others if you don't like it. Just step aside. Okay, a little extreme in that first analogy. So the discussion on whether or not to use the rule should be in the boundaries section of setup, right? Get the decision sorted up front, session zero. To use your second analogy, instead of salting the pot, the optional rule is more like putting the salt on the table and letting it be added to each bowl separately. Where each group playing from the rule book is a bowl. I also think there is (or should be) sufficient distance between the player knowledge and the character knowledge that use of the asexuality clause isn’t the character choice, but a players choice for what makes a better story. Of course I’d expect the uses of said rule to be few and far between, and made on meta knowledge (I guess you’d call it). Still, you have very valid points, and those points should be front and centre in the discussion whether to include this rule at the table. RPG's are a group activity. We all eat out of the same pot. One person can't opt to use an optional rule without it effecting the whole table. It's not a personal decision, it's a group one. Many times I've heard people ask, "When is it no longer D&D? One house rule, 20 pages of house rules?" To me there is an obvious bright line. On one side is Monsterhearts as intended. On the other side is the optional rule and 'not monsterhearts'. Turn Someone On is the most important move in the game. It might as well be the game. Without it you don't have monsterhearts. This kind of change strikes at that move and the core of the game. It would be like playing D&D without levels, D20's, or monsters.
|
|
jedidroid
Initiate Douchebag
I feel a Glitch in the Force
Posts: 32
|
Post by jedidroid on May 7, 2018 4:03:09 GMT -8
I think you missed my point. I took the pot of soup as the rules, and each bowl as a table of players. So your group decides whether or not to add salt. And that comes down to trust and communication at your table. Just because the rule book says “hey, salt doesn’t ruin the recipe, you can add it if you like” doesn’t mean your table has to add that salt.
It’s not about house ruling it either, it’s exactly like dnd5e saying “hey you can just do stat bumps, or you can use these feats.”
You’ve made people aware of concerns they should have regarding an optional rule, and if I were to sit at your table, we wouldn’t use it, but if you aren’t eating my soup, I’m adding salt, pepper and maybe oregano.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2018 4:18:53 GMT -8
I think you missed my point. I took the pot of soup as the rules, and each bowl as a table of players. So your group decides whether or not to add salt. And that comes down to trust and communication at your table. Just because the rule book says “hey, salt doesn’t ruin the recipe, you can add it if you like” doesn’t mean your table has to add that salt. It’s not about house ruling it either, it’s exactly like dnd5e saying “hey you can just do stat bumps, or you can use these feats.” You’ve made people aware of concerns they should have regarding an optional rule, and if I were to sit at your table, we wouldn’t use it, but if you aren’t eating my soup, I’m adding salt, pepper and maybe oregano. Yeah, still an issue. When anyone goes looking for a game, there are certain things they can assume about it because of the system. I can assume Monsterhearts is a game about sexy teen monsters who have no control over their emotions... Except I can't safely make that assumption anymore, now can I? Every time I go looking for a group I have to confirm that I'm getting what I think I am, and possibly having to rehash this very discussion when someone wants to use said optional rule (thus salting our table bowl as in your example). That is a giant problem. I'm not going to enjoy having to appear like bigot because I 'hate asexual people'. Plus I'll get yet another round of 'Well, you don't have to use the rule if you don't want to.' Fantastic. Shoot me now. Monsterhearts is a fairly niche game. It's not going to be the easiest game in the world to convince anyone to play. Then layer on top of that the fact that some large percentage of players will have a 'moral' problem with excluding the optional rule. That player base is looking really small now. It's almost a microcosm of the generic RPG problem. The RPG has 'some assembly required', printed on the box. Then we get to have an argument phase over which pieces (rules) to use and how to assemble them. Almost because it's only a single optional rule, but also because those arguments don't usual stray into the realms of accusations of bigotry.
|
|
fredrix
Master Douchebag
Posts: 2,142
Preferred Game Systems: Fate, L5R, Pendragon, Gumshoe, Feng Shui
Currently Playing: Pendragon, Song of Ice and Fire, L5R, Feng Shui, Traveller
Currently Running: Fate, Coriolis, Nights Black Agents
Favorite Species of Monkey: 1970's NTV, dubbed by the BBC (though The Water Margin beats it)
|
Post by fredrix on May 7, 2018 9:04:15 GMT -8
*Sigh* Are we still talking about this? “Don’t play with arseholes”
|
|