Search results

I don't choose to play CoC. Why do you think that might be? Even ignoring my dislike of eldritch horror, the fact the setting is so limited is one of its biggest turn-offs for me. Okay. I would need to, y'know, actually see that. I apologize for this being harsh, but talk is cheap, and I've had...

@soviet responded more or less how I would, but more politely, so I won't say that. I see this so-called "compromise" as an open slap in the face. It would be like when my father promised my mother that he would only take one scoop of ice cream....and as a result, he began to intentionally...

It has not seemed to me that folks calling for compromise are actually saying "my way must win". They are instead saying "you can't piss on my trouser and tell me it's raining." Imagine a robber-baron "compromising" with someone he's stealing land from by saying he'll hire her, at a wage well...

A point I can certainly grant. By that same token, however, this example kinda gives a good reason why leaning toward inclusive, even if you still restrict things, is wise. As GM, it makes your life a lot easier when collaborating with players (a collaboration which need not be rewriting your...

You did not ask me, but yes, plenty are. But it's not a simple "oh yes that's always 100% safe" kind of thing. It's messy. Intent matters, for instance, and can go back a ways. Friendliness matters. If someone goes the extra mile and genuinely tries to make me happy, but despite that effort it...

The "rebirth" thing comes from what happens to the grapes. First they are alive, as...well, grapes. Then you pluck them and crush them, pretty thoroughly killing them. But then you ferment the juice, infecting it with something alive, and it becomes a conduit to the divine through the altered...

I could see the initial benefit--the Channel Divinity--being very Carousing And Partying related, and then higher-tier benefits emphasize the other aspects of the wine cult: divine madness (e.g. the Maenads), transformation, and finally death-and-rebirth.

Ranger, Wizard, Artificer, Fighter, Cleric. ....we need a Wine domain. The wine cult is literally older than Mycenaean Greece. And you know Guinan would be a Wine Cleric.

While I certainly agree with you, I think the GM's role here is not nearly as passive as your phrasing implies. (I'm not sure if you meant it to be so passive.) That is, I find there are a handful of fairly reliable routes to getting your players to like an NPC, such as: Make them friendly...

Call them out for being a richard, perhaps? And I see that as at least one of those people (could be player, could be GM) almost surely engaging in bad faith. Building consensus is nearly always possible, unless one side or the other came to the table with the position "you will give me...

Fairness should never be "out the window". That's like saying honesty or justice is "out the window". We should always strive for the fairest possible situation--and I will always speak, passionately, for greater fairness, respect, and consensus-building. Anything less is dereliction of my...

So that is the argument being made, then? The bald assertion that the GM is just always right no matter what, and the player is just always wrong no matter what, unless and until they completely surrender on any point where they differ from the GM? Forget fairness. That's being a blatant...

But the specific rebuttal you and others have given, a zillion times over, is that they're supposed to be "weird", unusual, unfitting, an extreme option/example. When you base an argument around something being weird, pointing out to you that it is inoffensive and has existed in the game for a...

Precisely. "You can only be an X, Y, Z, or W. Also, classes L, M, and N are banned, and O/P/Q are only available by request." "Uh...why?" "Because that's the world I built." "Oh. I was kinda hoping to play <class L> and <race V>. Could we work something out?" "No. If you want to play that...

Exactly. There should not be monoracial cultures (a culture where 100% of members of that culture belong to just one race). There also should not be monocultural races (a race where 100% of all its representatives belong to just one culture).

The only possible conclusion, from your hard-binary presentation, is either that giving the player anything at all that the GM wasn't already bringing to the table means the player has "won", or that the GM has "won" and the player doesn't get the thing. So if the player doesn't "win"...they...

Personally, I've never seen D&D as a toolkit. Not even the editions which billed themselves as such. They are quite biased toward specific thematic, conceptual, and mechanical/procedural elements, and often really bad at anything outside that space. E.g. they're decent at survival, but pretty...

Why are the only options: GM is always right The loudest jerk wins Why? You have just pushed the exact thing I mentioned earlier. The players cannot be trusted. The GM must be trusted.

And yet how many people on here will tell you point blank that you ABSOLUTELY MUST have a person who calls all the shots and whose word is unquestionable, that if you question it you are ALWAYS the problem and must leave?

So, you're saying, building consensus is how things should work, rather than one person banging a gavel and ordering everyone else to do what they say? I agree. 100%.