>This move is a mistake, it needlessly exposes you to a serious risk some percentage of the time.
>Yeah, but we rolled well and it didn't come crashing down around our ears, so it's all good, stop being such a busybody!
Why are so many roleplayers and wargamers so bad at understanding probability and risk analysis?
Why are you such a pussy, who's afraid of risk and heroism? Nobody ever sang a song about some fag, who only ever fought when the odds were massively in his favor.
Because it's a story, not a game.
When the enemy has an advantage, probability is in their favor. If you want to win you need to increase the variance, hence take risks you wouldn't take normally. It's pretty simple op.
Why don't you try not shutting down that enemy wizard who is constantly throwing out save or die spells. After all, you're not afraid of a little risk, are you?
Risk is fine when there's a commensurate reward. Exposing yourself to risk when you don't have to, or when there's nothing to be gained by it isn't heroic, it's just stupid.
It is also a game; especially if you're talking a wargame in which point it's not really a story.
That is again not what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about a degree of randomness. I'm talking about exposing yourself to a risk with no upside that you didn't need to do at all.
Because the players are in it for the fantasy of being a badass, not the homework of studying the game's math like they have autism.
Your not wrong, but the goal is to have fun. If his play style is fun to him, and isn't overly hurting the group, then leaving his butt exposed is just something he needs to learn from the death of his character.
Just remember, if your too focused on absolute optimization, you may not be having as much fun as you may have convinced yourself. The win is fun, but the stress might not be worth it.
>I'm talking about exposing yourself to a risk with no upside that you didn't need to do at all.
Because you're playing a character who is thrill seeker or a show-off, or simply very overconfident about his abilities? There's several good reasons to take pointless risks.
Because why don't you mind your own fucking business. I don't tell you what to do on your turn.
>trying to win a game wherein the referee gets to decide everything (including the parameters of your rng system).
You gone full retard user
I really don't mind until the repetitive losses turn to lack of enjoyment for them.
At which point they talk about quitting or quit outright. Which prompts my:
"Why? What about it no longer feels fun? Fair enough, well if you want to ever give it another go we can have a chat, talk about some of the systems complexities before you have at it again. There's a lot to think about when it comes to anything mildly tactical."
Any if they never play again, that's fine too.
Nobody likes a quarterbacker, user. Let people have their fun.
You're right, we should just watch the enemy wizard kill people until he stops on his own for no reason.
Because being the faggot who only ever takes 10 whenever possible is boring.
because its human nature faggot autist
I get the feeling you should be playing a board game and not a roleplaying one
>roleplayers AND wargamers
You too What the hell were you guys doing when they were teaching the rest of us how to read?
Why do you feel the need to over-analyze every single action to the point of analysis paralysis?
>implying it takes long to figure probability in a non-dicepool system
Sometimes the reward outweighs the risk.
>That’s bad and wrong, stop having fun!
Maybe, just maybe, you should try to view things from another person’s point.
A culture that demonizes mistakes and trivializes learning from one's mistakes by focusing more on attacking a person's fundamental character traits rather than criticizing their decisions, aggressively shaming "wrong" people as if they were inherently and generically inferior rather than making incorrect decisions in one particular instance.
This creates a cognitive bias wherein the victims feel that the only way to be a "right" person is to have never been wrong in the first place, meaning that they must deny and rationalize their allegedly bad decisions in order to establish that they were actually good decisions; learning from one's mistakes is seen as a waste of time because it does nothing to prevent others from continuing to attack them, despite it serving no purpose.
What makes it worse is that the same culture has a very flimsy view of what constitutes a "wrong" decision or a constructive critique thereof. It's easier to be lured into thinking that one can ward off attackers by proving that a decision is right and the attacks on it are invalid when, from a logical perspective, it genuinely is. Unfortunately, this is not true, as the attackers are more concerned with being in the right and attacking others than being logical, and are unlikely to admit their attacks were in error due to the same cultural biases they inflict upon their victims.
So as you see, the reason is relatively simple.
>not playing a hot-blooded cocky young up-and-comer ready to foolishly stick to his guns til the bitter end
Sounds more like a result of capitalism to me. Since people are innately replaceable, any real mistakes mean it's easier to just fire you and hire someone else. But at the same time, the only way to get ahead is to prove you're not replaceable, which means you need to stand apart from the crowd. That means you're incentivized to take big risks with big rewards, but to cover your ass so if you fail then you won't get blamed. Ideally this means getting someone else to take the fall, but if that fails then you find whatever way you can to prove failure wasn't foreseeable and cross your fingers.
While this is good insight, i fail to see how it applies to tabletop.
A pc will sometimes make a bad call, even if they believe it's the right one.
A player has the right to make bad decisions if they are basing them on their character's intelligence and temperament without the GM complaining that the player is not making ooc optimal choices.
Maybe they're playing for fun rather than to win, and it's what their characters would do.
This is also hedging on the addition that the choice is not something that will outrageously cut back on other players' enjoyment of the game.
You can make bad decisions IC and not be wrong, you can be wrong if you make bad meta decisions.
If you learn to take stupid risks and pretend you didn't in real life, you'll carry over the same behavior when gaming.
I'd say the blame doesn't lie with any particular economic model, so much as a basic human tendency to use "good" behavior to justify their bad behavior rather than adjusting it. In this case, it applies to bullying. Bullies like to put others down to feed their pride, and they often use "constructive criticism" to excuse it. It's obvious that criticism is good and important and that people need to accept it, so if they attack people in a way that resembles criticism (even if there are noticeable differences) it gives them a sense of "being right" that distracts from the bad parts of their behavior and makes anyone who objects to it look bad.
Another, related bias is the desire to avoid obvious and simple conclusions because they're what a "childish" or "stupid" person would do, even when those simple conclusions are actually valid. When interacting with others, it's obvious and easy to say that you should be nice and not hurt people's feelings, but it's smarter to know that there are times you need to be honest; some people who feel this way will feel as if avoiding niceness makes them superior, and thusly go out of their way to be rude and harsh because it's on a "higher level" than niceness and courtesy, even in situations when there's no logical reason to make an exception. And when people point out the flaws in this behavior, it's easy to dismiss them as stupid, childish, "easily offended", "sanctimonious" inferiors who just can't take the "right" way to behave.
>roleplayers
Because pretty much every game is based around the idea that characters take some level of risk. If you sensibly invested your starting resources in your Generic Fantasy RPG, your character could sit out the content of games in order to run a small business while those other silly billies go and take needless risks.
>wargamers
A bit harder. Sometimes, folks are reckless in wargames. Some games encourage that sort of play. Sometimes you'll be in a situation where you know you're going to enter a losing position, and so a high risk play that has the chance to turn the game around will look appealing - after all, if your choices are "make a play that could lose me the game now" or "don't make that play and lose in a turn or two", why not throw the dice?
Does it matter if they are? Just focus on making your decisions right and stop trying to protect people from their own actions because you will always be pushing that rock up the hill
>players take this to heart
>six months later "my players are paranoid and refuse to commit to any action they're not overwhelmingly slated to win. Help"
You know those joke legends you'll see in fantasy novels where the legendary figure is just boring and only notable for being legendary? (Ragnar the King of Prudent Financial Upkeep) Yeah, why would you ever want to be one of those?