Recent content by The Firebird

I agree there are a number of cases that could complicate things. But, this is just not an accurate characterization of anyone's position. For example: No one is advocating that we stop giving GMs advice.

I remember seeing the same point made about D&D Beyond. The pitch is: "Character creation can take forever. D&D Beyond’s free character builder makes it quick and easy." Folks...you designed character creation!

I think it is worth reupping this from the OP: The claim is not that a new DM shouldn't encounter any challenges. It's that the game will be fun even with those challenges and they shouldn't let those challenges stop them from DMing.

I am reading @Reynard differently. To me, it comes across as: "if you find DMing hard, don't sweat it. You're doing great. All the people out there selling products and saying you must do X or Y are wrong and you don't need to compare yourself to them. Believe in yourself, just by showing up and...

I am not a big fan of it at the table. I played with the implementation in the BG1/2 remake from Beamdog, and thought it was a lot of fun there. But that's a different environment -- single player so you aren't messing with anyone else and you can save and reload. That said I think it would be...

This reads to me as the rules being unstated rather than not present. For the system to work, the referee has to be experienced. Presumably that means that two different referees would rule similarly--maybe not exactly the same as if the rules were written, but much more so than if there were no...

I can't imagine this will result in a better experience for viewers. There have been a lot of big bets on shows to capture the market, even if they didn't all turn out.

You can make up a lot of things on the spot as the GM and pass it off, especially if you're skilled. The players won't know if you fudge the baddies spell list, or the weather table, or if you decide the NPCs had 4 guards instead of 2 because the fight felt too easy. You might be able to go...

Doesn't he say the opposite? I'm thinking of an article, Realism and Game Logic, from Dragon #16. Quoting from a secondhand source: That said I've seen that article cited as proof Gygax didn't like simulationism, but he had a way of taking strong stances that make isolated quotes...

To me simulationism means that any actions are adjudicated based on what would reasonably happen in a setting. This can be done via rules, or can be done through a GM with extensive knowledge making rulings. It's better to do it through rules, but in some cases that may be impossible. It's...

This is a good point and it depends a lot on the specifics of the dungeon. Personally, I'd prefer for a designer to think through why each trap is there, why it hasn't been sprung and so on. You know what I see little of? Traps that failed or are deactivated due to age.

I hope you'll indulge me quoting from the other thread. No, I agree with your broader understanding of tells. But it's the same issue for me--that just wouldn't always happen, and if I always had a clue it would start to feel less immersive and more like a puzzle game. That said if the clues...

The first one; it seems to preclude the idea that there are good traps. Suppose the players got enough money to build a fort and added some traps to it. Would these be required to have tells? If so, that feels artificial. If not, then why can't anyone else build that way? I suppose no...

There is some internal tension here. When I read @Bill Zebub's post, my response is "but not all traps would have a tell". Having there always be a tell harms my sense of verisimilitude. Or perhaps, the door being in a dungeon built by an evil lich is enough of a tell. A good dungeon expedition...

This view has come under criticism. I wonder how people feel about the same approach to dungeon mapping? E.g., the GM does not provide a map, and if the players don't take notes and get lost, that's on them. That seems more accepted to me, but I'm not sure if there is a core difference between...