Recent content by EzekielRaiden

It's hard to view Death as TN for me. Very early on, where he's much more amoral and occasionally does some things that are kinda questionable, definitely TN. But by the time of Reaper Man, he's definitely become Neutral Good--willing to bend the rules, willing to defy his theoretical masters...

I don't personally think the second is a viable path, even if I had the money to do so. I already run a game. (It will be going on temporary hiatus as we just finished up an adventure and one of our longtime players has had some extremely important real-life events to attend to.) I have not...

Well then, I consider that objection pretty seriously problematic, if retrocausality is totally unacceptable from one participant and completely unobjectionable from another.

I tried to "cut the cord" with WotC. I literally didn't find games. The absolute, overwhelming hegemony of D&D is too much.

Nothing comes to mind, but I'm sick and operating on a grand total of three hours of sleep (2 early this morning, another 1 about five hours ago) so I'm not really firing on all cylinders. Though part of the problem is "the last narrated event" is an extremely squishy thing. Consider, for...

Not me. I'm not the one being asked to change. The game is what is being asked to change (or, where it already pleases such folks, to never change nor expand).

By definition, you have. To have authority MEANS to expect obedience. authority: "the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine." obedient: "obeying or willing to obey; complying with or submissive to...

This stance has nothing to do with my experience with GMs. Anyone--literally anyone--claiming any form of authority over others must necessarily accompany that with a submission to higher standards of counduct. Sometimes, only within a limited domain, but in many cases, some degree of higher...

This conflicts with the repeated assertion that "the GM is reality". By definition--by your definition--the GM cannot disrupt the game. Everything they say goes. Period. That's the necessary consequence of them having absolute power. Whatever they say is true, is true. Period. End of discussion.

Sure. Judges don't have absolute authority in their courtrooms, but they do have extremely high authority and literally have officers of the court to force obedience when it is not given. The judge also mostly sits silently, interjecting only to correct deviations from the rules. Further, it is...

It's more like a puzzle where the corner pieces have been put in... ...and the GM can then spindle, fold, and mutilate the remaining pieces into whatever result she desires. Because she can invent a nearly-infinite list of possible eventualities in essentially every case. Nearly no cases are...

We learn that the character did not observe the thing... And then, only AFTER knowing that the character did not observe the thing, we invent the preceding events which led up to that failure to notice. In particular, if someone who has a high bonus rolls poorly and thus fails to notice, that...

I mean, I've convinced at least a couple people in this very thread of my position, or to move closer to my position. So...kind of yeah? I'm just absolutely sick and tired of people lambasting, hating, railing against a bunch of things that are perfectly fine and acceptable, doing everything...

I mean, yeah, I'm going to hold the person claiming "absolute authority" to a higher standard than the people who are expected to fall in line or else. Dunno about you, maybe you feel people with power deserve to be given more leniency, and people without it should be put to the screws, but that...

I don't understand why scale and responsibility matter when the (claimed) issue is one of principle. If it is principle that is actually the problem, then these things should not happen. If principle is not actually the issue, then several things people have taken umbrage with in this very...