Search results

I am willing to assume good faith on the part of the GM. If, and ONLY if, we also assume good faith on the part of the players. As you can see, far too many people want to have their cake and eat it too on this front. They want to assume that every player is a nasty, grubbing, grabby-hands...

Dragonlance. I was very clear about that. Dragonlance is the version of D&D that has limited-to-zero-death rules.

I mean, given what we actually do see in 5e, I don't think there really is any room for debate, but I'm willing to leave it at "we agree to disagree". Okay but if you get to presume bad-faith behavior on the part of the players, why should I have to labor under the notion that GMs only and...

As always, always, always: Chris Perkins' Iomandra setting! Here's a Homebrewery PDF that compiled most of the information known about the setting, including the few maps we have. (It's meant to not have a full world map.) Most of the images have been lost, but the Wayback Machine has preserved...

I was replying to another poster (not sure if you can see this) and using their terms to build the response.

Quite fair; my issue is not that bad outcomes shouldn't be possible (I always endeavor to do the same). Rather, in the context of the preceding conversation, the principle given was some variation of "Don't take away the things that make the character matter to the player." I fear I don't...

It's an interesting analysis, but it feels like there really isn't much difference between NY and SBY (except for one I'll address below). That is, the only difference I can see is that, in SBY, the players have a more overt responsibility to be as proactive as possible, while NY they should...

Sometimes they don't. Many times, they're (or I'm!) thinking as creatively as possible, and applying something outside of the explicit, narrow definitions that the ability allows. My Dark Sun sorcerer, for example, using Burning Spray to set an oily oasis-mimic on fire rather than getting...

So you think that that manifesto is your platonic ideal of gaming...but you directly and specifically reject prioritizing the players first? Bit of a swerve, there. Not sure I can make sense of it.

Wait, so now players signing up for something is an absolute must-assume, it has to be true, and a player that then reevaluates is being a problem, such that we can and should question why they would do that... But a GM running a system is completely the opposite??? For goodness' sake, this is...

"Fail without retry" is orthogonal to "Fail Forward". The two can appear together, each separately, or both absent. Loose pure-hypothetical back-of-the envelope examples. FWR+FF: Rolling an Arcana check to determine the destination of a teleportation portal before it closes. Can't really try...

My experience is entirely the opposite. "Asking can I do X" happens all the time in combat. Nice strawman there. I never said that. But go off, friendo. I have little desire to discuss it further when you levy accusations and then do the exact thing you just accused me of.

They never ask if X thing would work? They never experiment? That's frankly shocking. If that isn't needed in the former, why would it be needed here? .... You have a very strange idea of what counts as "smooth" vs "clunky". I find social encounters never, and I genuinely mean never, are...

Oooh boy. Gonna have to completely reject that penultimate sentence of this bit. Death is not a structural necessity. There are plenty of games, including some versions of D&D, that do not have character death. Consider Dragonlance stuff. Very much D&D--but the modules explicitly had rules...

The point was that your personal perspective on it has nothing to do with whether it is, in fact, absolutely that thing and no other things. Partial success is distinct from both unmitigated success and unmitigated failure. It is, by its nature, a mixed thing. You are within your rights to say...

Generally? Probably about what you said in the bit I cut out--about two or three sessions at most. If the game takes more than four multi-hour sessions to play, it's at least more like a TTRPG than it is like the vast, vast majority of board games. Why not? Length of game means length of...

I believe so, yes. And it was just as tedious as one might expect.

I did not "start complaining" when the fireproof box was brought up. That was brought up as a dismissal of my criticism. Beyond that, I have nothing further to say to this, because you're straight-up divorcing the conversation from the context in which it occurred in order to--as I have been...

But it isn't a large disruption in combat...? Where rolls are much more frequent and often occur rapid-fire? C'mon Max. This is blatant special pleading.

I didn't say they don't. You had responded to something talking about not casually destroying the things that make a player care about their character, by straight-up saying nope, doesn't matter, I can and will destroy the stuff that makes you care about playing your character. Whether or not...